Jump to content

Talk:Bože pravde/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Copyrighted text on this page used with permission.

The link to the mp3 file is dead (indeed, the whole website it was on is now empty). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:33, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As of now, the link is still broken, and the home domain just leads to an FTP directory, with the cgi-bin folder. Yurfxrendenmein 15:45, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why is the media box in the top right displaying ("জাতীয় সংগীত" presumably "National Anthem", "কথা" presumably author, and "সুর" presumably composer) in Assamese language on this, the English page? JohnGH (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That is vandalism in the Infobox Anthem template. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Uneven page

Don't you guys think the page is in a mess? __earth 17:36, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

  • made some facial change to adhere to general wikipedia format __earth 17:52, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

"In lyrics of Serbia, there are differences in three verses"

I can see differences in the cyrillics, but there is only one transliteration (which does not indicate if it is of the text Serbia or of Srpska), and the translations are identical.

What exactly is the difference? [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 10:33, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

English translation is nice, but rather liberal; here's a more strict one (of the last strophe):
Defend the Serbian homeland/kingdom
Fruits of five-century struggle
God save, God defend/God breed Serbian king
Serbian kin prays to you
Duja 14:15, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I must say that in Serbian, HRANI means Store,keep safe, defend... Pohraniti - sacuvati

It is simple: "Boze spasi, Boze hrani" means "God save, God protect". "Boze spasi, Boze brani" means "God save, God defend". -- Noirceuil 13:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Rod = offspring

Mmh. "Hraniti" primarily means "feed" in Serbian; the meaning "keep, protect" from other Slavic languages is lost in modern Serbian. "Pohraniti" is a bit archaic (and/or Croatish). On the other hand, it might be just that, archaic usage, which is intended: while "God feed Serbian lands" makes sense, the original "God feed Serbian king" does not quite... Duja► 13:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina

The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina on 17 and 18 November 2006

Noirceuil, what's the problem? If an article of the Law is found unconstitutional, it means that the anthem is not according to the constitution, ergo it's not (or will not be in near future) an anthem. It doesn't mean that the song would be banned. Here's a summary [1] which states that:
As a result, FBiH does not have a flag or coat of arms, while RS does not have an anthem or coat of arms.
I fail to see how your removal of the sourced text helps any clarification. And, your edit summary:
The Articles... are unconstitutional not the hymn per se. Read the Text of the Court you linked!
looks like rules lawyering, sorry: you're trying to say that invalidation of the law on anthem does not invalidate the anthem itself??? Duja► 09:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The constitutional court of BiH declared the anthem illegal and everyone who writes Boze Pravde as RS anthem is using vandalism. Visca el barca 08:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

English version

  • Is done quite well, changing some words (but never going outside context) in oder to make it rhyme has actually made possible for someone who doesn't understand Serbian to grasp true meaning of the song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.198.195 (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

English translation

English translation is not very precise. I really hope that someone will change it asap. I would not like to do that because I'm not so confident about my English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belgrade (talk • contribs)

The source is official government site of Republika Srpska; there's no translation on *.gov.yu sites. As with any translation, the question is whether we want it more "precise" (i.e. literal) or more "nice" (i.e. keeping rhythm and spirit of the original text). Since this translation is (semi-)official, I would refrain from changes. Duja 07:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The translation is not (semi-)official. The webmaster of the RS-homepage simply put it there. I don´t know the exact source of it anymore but it is a serbophile english author. -- Noirceuil 12:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The translation is a "prepev" - a free translation. You can't translate a song or poem and expect both the exact meaning to be preserved AND the rhyme, rhythm etc. The author of the translation simply went with the more "free" option and as a native English speaker I think it is a good rendition, in keeping with similar hymns from the Protestant tradition. Also, I believe the translation is almost contemporary with the song (1872) - I am sure I saw the name of the translator and the year somewhere... So it should not just be changed lightly. Perhaps another "literal" translation of the song could be done..? I could do that, it would just take time... Markowe (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Srpske zemlje, srpski rod" means "serbian lands, serbian people" not race! Word "rod" means ethnicity, nationality.

It means "serbian lands, serbian kin". -- Noirceuil 12:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Serbian embassy says it means race. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 08:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

1st line: Should not "Bože pravde" should be translated as "God of Truth" instead of "God of Justice"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.232.231 (talk • contribs)

Nope; you're probably mistaking it with Russian language, where "pravda" means "truth" indeed. In Serbian, it means "justice". Duja► 13:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

English translation is GREATLY inacurate

OK, I agree to some extent with the previous post, but only because that translation makes it rhyme. However, I think it shouldn't stand as official (which should be: literal) translation, but as the rhymeable improvised add-on. My oppinion is that the given translation should have a warning that a lot of words are changed for purpose of rhyme, and that it is thus very inaccurate.

Someone should make literal translation.

To help:

English word for 'род' is 'kin' (putting word 'race' in the given English translation can be interpreted as malicious act (as those who unsuspectingly read that English translation - especially if malicious - could interpret it as... racist?)).

'Боже правде' is 'God of justice'.

Instead of worrying translation 'annihilation' of the profound meaning put word 'disaster' or 'ruination' ('пропаст').

"God of armies! be our leader, Strengthen then the Serbian race!"?!??!???! - Now -that must be a deliberate malicious translation... It's like it says that our supreme God is God of war and that we are a separate race seeking greater force!?! Totally wrong set of verses... That particular couple of verses in original says "Кад наступе борбе дани к' победи му води ход. Боже спаси, Боже храни српске земље, српски род!" - "When the days of battle come, to victory lead its pace. God save, God feed Serbian countries and Serbian kin.". I mean - talk about failed translations...

"Be our leader as in the past." is totally failed translation, it should be "from now on as well be our salvation." etc.

...Just make literal translation - that's official, not those artistic freedoms (plus with that old-English...).

It is a beautiful translation and it carries the feeling of the original much better than a literal translation ever could. It's not supposed to be "accurate".
I see that it's been emended and made incongruous since the first version of the article (which had a congruent, single translation): the opening words "God of justice, Thou who saved us when in deepest bondage cast" have been changed to "Righteous Lord; Thou who saved us from annihilation", and I'm of the mind to change it back.
"God of Justice" is the actual appellation with which the Serbian version begins as well, and there's no justification for changing it to "Righteous Lord" against the congruity of the original translation. It does not mean that the song is addressing one of many gods, it merely emphasizes that the Christian god is being addressed in his capacity as a bringer of justice. If somebody honestly believes that a reader could be confused about this, then the proper way to fix that is to explain it in the text of the article, not to mess with a single, consistent translation.
"Thou who saved us from annihilation" is indeed a more literal translation of the original Serbian words than "Thou who saved us when in deepest bondage cast" but it is completely dissonant with the rest of the first stanza.
Also the fear that phrases like "Serbian race" in a 19th-century anthem translation could be construed as racist or "malicious" are truly unfounded. It is simply slightly archaic English, just as the original is slightly archaic Serbian.
I would suggest to those who object to the free poetic translation: Do not try to "fix" the translation offered in the article piecemeal. Instead, find another, complete, more literal translation, one more to your tastes (or write it up yourself!) and put it into the article alongside this translation. Then everyone can enjoy both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.155.151.233 (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Translating "храни" as "feed" or "nourish" makes no sense what so ever... It does, in fact, imply to archaic slavic meaning - "to protect", "to defend". Can that be fixed? --PrimEviL 14:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, with the person above. Serbs dont have gods, but one G-d.Mike Babic (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I "fixed" the link to the official English translation, but soon after it stopped working.

The stupid website seems to work using cookies; if you select English version of the website first, and THEN paste the link http://www.srbija.gov.rs/pages/article.php?id=5412, it will work. Otherwise, you get an error message...

Happy us with so competent IT people. No such user (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I got it fixed now: http://www.srbija.gov.rs/pages/article.php?id=5412&change_lang=en. No such user (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for that. I will contact the goverment ASAP.Mike Babic (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Mike what did you mean with this note?
Note: Serbian Orthodox Church is based on monotheism and thus it's constructed on a belife of a single creator, and not multiple "gods" as is belived in polytheism.
I mean, pretty much everyone knows that Christians are monotheistic. I don't see even a hint to the otherwise in the anthem? What's the relevance to the article? No such user (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the text clearly says God, not gods.--Avala (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The translation does mention "God of armies" and "God of justice" so a lot of people will be confused with this translation since the translation could be interpreted as the country of Serbia is following a polytheistic religion. Guys please add back the note and make correction to it so that it reflect this message more clearly. Message being, Serbia is largly populated by people who belive in one G-d. Two/Three heads are better then one, so please change the wording of the message which i wrote.Mike Babic (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Mike how could they be confused... Oh my God... You mean, like Mars-god-of-armies and Athena-goddess-of-justice? Come on... Trust me, no one could plausibly make such a construction. We don't put such disclaimers on obvious things; it's obvious that it's just a figure of speech. No such user (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It does't say that there is more than one God. It says God of justice and God of armies, but this is, of course, the same God, one and only. He is at the same time God of justice, armies, and everything else. The text doesn't say that there is any other God. There is no confusion. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I can see your point of view that the translation describes qualities of one G-d yet I'm assured that there is confusion about the issue. For example, a post was made on this discussion page, right above, stating, "God of armies! be our leader, Strengthen then the Serbian race!"?!??!???! - Now -that must be a deliberate malicious translation... It's like it says that our supreme God is God of war and that we are a separate race seeking greater force!?! Totally wrong set of verses...I mean - talk about failed translations.... Thus, it clearly proves that another editior sees this as being a problem. I can also assure you that for every one person who is offended by this translation and writes something on this discussion there are thousands of people who are also offended yet dont write something. All in all, I absoluty do belive that a small, short and simple note exlaining the translation is in order.Mike Babic (talk) 06:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Once again, the translation citation was a DEAD link at first Avala.... Now its "fixed" but the translation on the official site is clearly posted by some low paid website editor who copied it from someplace else. Now I think that my argument (put a disclamer) is fair since other editors agree with me (see above). Assume good faith broski, i think that the warning (which is also helpful in linking to the serbian religion) is in order since I challange you to find me when the Serbian goverment has adopted the english version of the natrional anthem....!!!
We're assuming good faith, at least I do... still. But who agreed with you? I count zero (0) people. And "clearly posted by some low paid web site editor" is only your assertion. Like it or not, the translation appears on the official website. No disclaimers necessary or needed. See also WP:DISCLAIM. No such user (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The literal translation

I was contemplating including both "poetic" and "literal" translations, as it was done in Hymn to Liberty. Searching for a more literal translation, I stumbled upon this book by Voislav Petrovich, Serbian patriot and "lobbyist" in the UK, from early 20th century. The lyrics we were discussing above are translated by certain "Elisabeth Chistitch" (Јелисавета Христић?) as early as 1915 (the day when the book was signed, a page before). Well, I still didn't found a reliable source for a more literal translation, but thought this might be interesting... Shame that no one seems to credit her for this. No such user (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

a Great idea is a Great idea. I will also try to look for a more literal translation, maybe we can help each other translate it even.Serbia The Great (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who added the "literal" translation, but sorry, it's neither literal nor good. Someone just took the "poetic" one, and added articles here and there. As result, it neither flows well, nor carries the meaning of the original. We would prefer a certified (cited) translation, but barring one, at least (attempt to) do it well, or try posting it to talk page first. Thanks. No such user (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics

Somebody changed the serbian text again. The problem is that the text from the ofiicial Government site ([2]) is not the same as the text given in the Law ([3]). I think we should use only the text given in the Law on National Symbols, because it is the only official text. So, I changed the text to reflect the Law's text, and I changed the references, so that the law is now the only reference for the anthem's lyrics. The difference is in the secont verse, which is in the law defined as:

Moćnom rukom vodi, brani
budućnosti srpske brod,
Bože spasi, Bože hrani, x2
srpske zemlje, srpski rod! x2

while the Government's site gives it as:

Moćnom rukom vodi, brani
budućnosti srpske brod,
Bože spasi, Bože hrani,
srpske zemlje, srpski rod!
Srbiju nam Bože brani,
moli ti se srpski rod!

I don't know how this difference came to be. If anyone knows something, please, help. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the text should reflect the text as it is given in the Law on the Appearance and the Use of the Coat of Arms, the Flag and the Anthem of the Republic of Serbia.
Article 37, section 1 of the said Law defined a shorter variant, with two stanzas, which is to be sung at sport events, and other non-state related events. But the Law did not decide which verses will be sung at the finishing part of the Anthem. It decided that the Government will decide on that. Currently the Government did not decide anything of a sort.
I suggest that you do not insert the x2 solution because the Law did not decide that, we might only speculate what will the Government of Serbia decide, so the matter should be left alone for a period of time.
I can remember that the royal (short) version went something like, this:
Bože pravde, Ti što spase
Od propasti, do sad nas,
Čuj i od sad naše glase
I od sad nam budi spas!
Moćnom rukom vodi, brani
Budućnosti srpske brod,
Bože spasi, Bože hrani
Srpskog kralja, srpski rod!
Srpskog kralja, Bože hrani
Moli ti se srpski rod!
Nek’ na srpsko vedro čelo
Tvog ne padne gneva grom,
Blagoslovi Srbu selu,
Polje, njivu, grad i dom!
Kad nastupe borbe dani,
K’ pobedi mu vodi hod,
Bože spasi, Bože hrani
Srpskog kralja, srpski rod!
Srpskog kralja, Bože hrani
Moli ti se srpski rod!
The Government of Serbia link you provided is interesting, and shows the intent of the Government. But this is not official yet. It is something like a preview of what the future solution would be.
In my opinion the Government of Serbia should not attempt to re-discover gravity (boiling of water, etc.) but instead use the text that is already in the Law.
Bože pravde, ti što spase
od propasti dosad nas,
čuj i odsad naše glase
i od sad nam budi spas.
Moćnom rukom vodi, brani
budućnosti srpske brod,
Bože spasi, Bože hrani,
srpske zemlje, srpski rod!
Bože spasi, Bože brani
moli ti se srpski rod!
Imbris (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi Guys Did you ever realize that in Serbian Cyrillic you write

Боже спаси, Боже храни, Српског краља, српски род

which means something like save the King!!! this is the old version there is no king in serbia you should change it into српске земље, српски род

look at http://www.parlament.rs/content/cir/o_skupstini/simboli/simboli.asp

--86.132.61.174 (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

hi again i changed the serbian cyrillics, now it is correct --86.132.61.174 (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

God, give us justice

There are maybe two possible translations "God of justice", and "God, [give us] justice". However, the slight catch is that only the former is correct and logical, and the second is an egregious error, promulgated by the incompetent staff of the president's website [4].

The reading "God [give us] justice" can not be possibly correct for the following reasons:

  • There is no comma between "Bože" and "pravde", which is required if only "Bog" were in accusative.
  • If you analyse the first stanza, it is impossible that it translates to "God, give us justice, Thou that saved...". The parenthetical sentence "Thou that saved..." must come after the subject (God), not after the alleged verbal clause (give us justice), no matter the licencia poetica.

I know that this translation is ostensibly referenced, but we are free to apply common sense and consensus when selecting which sources to apply. My take is that this particular source is simply wrong, and we should not promulgate that error. Unfortunately, I can not find a reliable source discussing the correct translation and meaning (here's a Forum post in Google cache [5], but it fails WP:RS), so we're left on our own. No such user (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. Anyone who reads the text of the anthem sees that the correct meaning is "God (or Lord) of Justice". The only problem is that the president's official site cites wrong translation. Maybe we should write to them and tell them to fix it. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I already contacted them, several months ago. No reply whatsoever :(. No such user (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Your analysis is nice but unfortunately it fails all Wikipedia rules most importantly this one - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.. Please read WP:VERIFY to see why your analysis, even if true, can't precede the website of the President of Serbia. Claims that it is the work of the "incompetent staff of the president's website" while also claiming that you are competent are all the violation of the WP:NOR as all we have is your unpublished claim, regardless of how true it is, it's status remains the same. Also I disagree that we are supposed to choose which version is more correct as both sources are equally qualified to be good sources on this matter, so apart from such choice being an original research, not including both views is the violation of the WP:NPOV as it shows only one side. All we need is an external verifiable source, not your claims, and that is not what I say, that is what the rules say. Anyway keep trying, they don't ever reply to emails so you will have to call them, but until then, it has to stay or else it is the violation of three basic Wikipedia rules.--Avala (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That is what I call rules lawyering. My point is that editors have brains, and are supposed to use them. In the meanwhile, I will return the "God of justice" translation as the primary, because it is indicated by the official translation given on the parliament website. No such user (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually everything that I said is very much in the spirit of the rules as it all comes down to choosing between you and the website of the President of Serbia as a source for the information on the national anthem. Rules on one side put such sources as the Presidential website as the highest quality sources on a matter of this kind and on the other side they absolutely forbid the thoughts and ideas of users to be used in articles in any possible way. So it's that simple that you don't even have to use a brain, we have two sources here - one absolutely preferred and one absolutely forbidden so it's very simple on what we are supposed to go with...--Avala (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
And also I am not so sure about giving the precedence to the version by the Govt because according to you it's a "sensible translation" while the Presidential translation is "wrong" which is all completely arbitrary as the order is made according to you and not an external reference. The only reference we have on this matter is the Constitution of Serbia which says that "The President of the Republic expresses the governmental unity of the Republic of Serbia and represents the Republic of Serbia within the country and abroad." meaning that the supreme constitutional representative of Serbia is the President and he thus has precedence over the Government on such matters so I shall put the Presidential translation ahead. Remember you can disagree with this but this is Wikipedia and no one is interested in your thoughts, so if you have any source that is according to Wikipedia rules more important than the Constitution then please go ahead and tell us but if you don't then there is no point in you sharing your thoughts or me sharing mine as this is not a chat forum for us to share our thoughts and views.--Avala (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Good grief. And you concluded all of that based on a sentence on president's website, apparently written without a second thought, and a constitution article completely irrelevant to the case at hand? I think I'll refrain from further comments, because you left me speechless. You should get into politics, really. No such user (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Well I am telling you that is not about me or you but you keep making this look like some kind of a dispute of our views on content while it's only the different view on rules. While I think that we should follow the good rules, one of them being that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, you are proposing that we should not do that and instead resort to uncertainty of relying on Wikipedians themselves as sources of information which could cause plenty of trouble. I am telling you that it is irrelevant if you or me or anyone else thinks that the external sources are wrong as it is not a Wikipedia matter but a chat forum matter. You are not having a dispute with me here, but with President of Serbia, and per Wikipedia rules this dispute does not even exist, you loose at the very beginning as your views do not comply with rules on original research and verifiability. Per Wikipedia rules Presidential website is a very valid source and cannot be replaced with user thoughts and views which are not a valid source in any situation anyway (and even if we personally were those who were directly deciding on this issue, the rule that prohibits self-publishing would prevent us from using ourselves as sources). As for the Constitution, it is very relevant because it shows who is the constitutional representative of Serbia, and the constitutional representative according to the current Constitution is the office called President of Serbia. The anthem is very much a matter of representation of Serbia, so the view on anthem of the one that has a constitutional role of being a representative of Serbia and also the one that expresses the governmental unity, is very much important and precedes everything else including of course Wikipedia users and their personal views. You may think that the President doesn't know what he is doing but that is not verifiable per Wikipedia rules, thus the website remains the supreme source, in adherence to the rules of Wikipedia.--Avala (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The purpose of Wikipedia is to disseminate knowledge, not information that is known, or easily proven, to be false. That is the spirit of the rules, and you keep telling me about the letter. I disagree that the English translation of President's website is a sufficiently reliable source about the meaning of verses of the national anthem. As you know, that website is maintained (or, as it seems, not maintained) by certain staff, who are so proficient in their job that they apparently do not even read the e-mail. Please, oh please, do not cite Constitution as the argument: it does not determine whose web master is more competent. Do you really think that the website was proofread by the President?
A trully reliable source would be a peer-reviewed paper or a book analysing the verses (which, unfortunately, we do not have), and an official translation (which we do have on the Parliament website). But both translations can not be correct, and if there is conflicting information in the sources, we are free to use our best judgment.
The rules of verifiability are there to stop people inserting their personal opinion and original research. This is not about my personal opinion, but about which version from two conflicting sources is correct -- because both cannot be correct. The phrase "Bože pravde" can have only one meaning. On one hand, we have a translation which is more widespread, supported by the full lyrics translation, and on the other, we have just a passing mention in the sentence that happens to be on the president's website. No such user (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Now, should we peruse, for example, Google book search? Here are first dozen hits that have a foreign translation:
List of English translations from Google books
  • Serbia and Montenegro in Pictures (2007): In August 2004, the Republic of Serbia chose "Boze Pravde" (God of | j] Justice),
  • National Anthems (2006): The work may be replaced in Serbia in the foreseeable future by the anthem "Boze Pravde" ("God of Justice");
  • The Music review: Volume 3 (1942) The first verse of the Serbian hymn: Boze pravde, ti, sto spase (God of Justice, by Thee guarded). ...
  • Serbien: Unterwegs zu verborgenen Klöstern und Kunstschätzen (2009): Das neue Parlament beschloss ohne eine einzige Gegenstimme die Einführung der Hymne ›Bože Pravde‹ (Gott der Gerechtigkeit)
  • A history of modern Serbia, 1804-1918: Volume 2 (1976): and the future Serbian national anthem "Boze pravde" (God of Justice)
  • Carnegie magazine (1945): Boze pravde, ti, sto spase God of Justice, Save Thy People (Combines the hymns of Serbia, ...
  • Mission for Serbia: letters from America and Canada, 1915-1920 (1970): Members of the local Serbian colony opened it by singing our Serbian national anthem, "Boze Pravde" ("God of Justice").
  • A survey of Serbian music through the ages (1972): One of those songs which became particularly popular was the final choral song Boze pravde (O, God of Justice),
  • The South Slav journal: Volume 25, Issues 1-4 (2004): Only the Serbian Volunteer Corps played and sang publicly the anthem "Boze pravde... " ("God of justice...")
  • Belgrade: among the Serbs (1994): Then they worked their way through a variety of other nationalist tunes, ending with "Boze Pravde" (God Is Justice),
  • Slouch hat (1935): . certain vagueness, including the splendid Boze Pravde, Thou God of Justice, of the Serbs.
  • Yugoslavia at the crossroads (1983): a Serbian art teacher from Belgrade, recently publicly proposed a return on the old hymn "Boze Pravde" (God of Justice),
  • A brief history of Serbian music (1996): poem and hymn Boze pravde (O, God of Justice)
  • World and Its Peoples - Page 1698 (2009): Belgrade Republic; parliamentary democracy 18 years, universal "Boze Pravde" (God of justice) ...
  • Nationalhymnen der Welt: Entstehung und Gehalt (2006): Die serbische Nationalhymne Boze pravde („Gott der Gerechtigkeit")
  • Umbruch in östlichen Europa: die nationale Wende und das ... (2004): und die ehemalige dynastische Hymne - „Der Gott der Wahrheit" (Boze pravde) aus 1872 -, aber es kam zu keiner ...
So, not a single English or German language source, from any time period, supports the "president's" reading of it. Of all the Serbo-Croatian renderings encountered, "Bože pravde" outnumbers "Bože, pravde" (with a comma) some 20:1. I appeal to common sense, not to bureaucratic reading. And here's a policy for you: WP:BUREAUCRACY. 12:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
No you are wrong, we are not free to choose between two conflicting views on which one is correct (as you pompously claim in your edits "this version is correct" with missing "in my opinion"), we are supposed to show all views on any issue per WP:NPOV. Those are historic translations, they are not official today. Today, the official source is the President, not the book from 100 years ago, thus if you have an external verifiable source to back up your claim that the Presidential website is all wrong and run by idiots (I actually now doubt that they didn't reply to you, more likely they did but you disliked the answer) and does not have any legitimacy please provide it. If you don't it's all your opinion on this page and that is what Wikipedia is not interested in. So please, do not reply with a block of text of your views, we've already heard them enough times already. Now it's time for valid references for your claims on the Presidential website, so you either have them or not. That's the only thing needed, another round of your personal arguments is not. You are missing the point here, you continuously try to convince me that this or that content is correct. But it's not about me, it's about the rules, because even if you convinced me in every word you say I would still insist on following the rules and keeping this in the article because Wikipedia does not rely on my opinion and if I am convinced or not but on its good rules that say that we need to back up claims with verifiable external sources. Otherwise we could all agree here on that Barack Obama is an alien and add that to Wikipedia because in that way, the talk page agreement would be sufficient to create the truth.--Avala (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
No, you don't get the point. How can I come up with a source that something is not correct? Why should anyone knowledgeable particularly care about what is written on a certain website, and argue with that? I offered the numerous sources which only present one version, and except for the President website, I didn't find any which supports that version. If I were, say, an expert in astronomy, my papers, or any other astronomer's, likely will not contain the statement that moon is not made of green cheese. Unlike you, I don't think that this version should be taken without reservation and research, especially because it is not supported by any other reliable source.
Also, WP:NPOV comes in play when there is a real-world debate about the issue. Take for example Kosovo: Serbia and half the world claims that it is under Serbian sovereignity, and the other half of the world that it's independent. There is a debate, which we report, noting claims by both sides. However, there is no real-world debate about English translation of the title of the Serbian anthem: instead, we got numerous sources claiming A, and a single source claiming B, which also fails a simple logic test. So, who should I trust? No such user (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest this short video, it will explain to you how Wikipedia should be edited. It should explain to you why your idea that we are supposed to choose the correct version is not in accordance with rules and that in accordance with rules is only showing both sides. You might be correct that there is only one correct version but per Wikipedia rules we are supposed to portray both views and let the readers decide, not choose one of the versions as the correct version for them and show only that version.

I hope that you wont ignore the video, it's an official video and if you really do watch it, I think it will greatly help this situation.--Avala (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-en.ogv
Video introducing the main concepts of "Neutral point of view" and "Verifiability" in a nutshell (2 minutes 10 seconds, 11 MB).
I am well aware of policies, thanks. I even accepted that the "President's" version appears in the text. The only concession I ask from you is that it is not listed as the primary, because it is obviously far less used. I find your arguments involving the Constitution totally off-base, and, pardon my being frank, insulting my intelligence. The Constitution does not determine whose English website takes precedence. No such user (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
And, here are a few quotes for you in turn, since you like the rules:
From WP:BURO:

Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

From WP:REDFLAG:

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:[...]Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. [...]Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources.[4] If such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

So, do you have any other reliable sources which supports that translation, or is it to be trusted just because it is made in the cabinet of the Supreme Leader™? I gave you some 20 above, including the website of the Parliament, which you conveniently ignore? No such user (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Origins of Boze Pravde

I have no precise information about this, so I am reluctant to add anything to the text, but I know for a fact that it is based on Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser but no information of this origin of the Serbian anthem can be found on this page or the one about the Austrian monarchic anthem (though it lists other usage as an anthem) 85.40.209.178 (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. The similarity is stunning indeed, but I cannot find any reliable source linking the two. No such user (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bože pravde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 00:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bože pravde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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) 08:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Moli ti se sav naš rod

I found a set of lyrics with this line in it and there's quite a few videos on YouTube using it, but it's not listed in the article. Is it an older or unofficial version? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 23:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that is a variation which honors the fact that there is a significant number (~15%) of national minorities living in Serbia. Serbian is per original. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see. (I think?) the lyrics (at least the currently-used set of them) were only officially standardized in 2009, so before then you had (variations like?) this line. A video I found online using the line is dated as being from 2007, which seems to support the theory. So, it seems that before 2009 the line "Moli ti se sav naš rod" was used, but however is no longer. I think it might be a byproduct of the Yugoslav days (as the country consisted of more than just Serbia during those days), being discontinued in 2009, a few years after the breakup of SCG in June 2006. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 02:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bože_pravde/Archive_1&oldid=1261486835"