Talk:Serbs/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Origin of Serbian Ethnonym is clear

I don't know where to write this, but I call every Admin (if there are ones) to read this. I am charged for doing disruptive edits in this article. But I am not doing any edits, I am just reverting things that user Zoupan is doing. He is deleting section where Serbian genetics are written. Almost every nation on Wikipedia has Genetics subtheme in main article, Serbs also had it until 16. March 2015. when use Zoupan removed the section. This is the article until 16. March Serbs 16. March 2015. The DNA reserch has been done by European Union and is present on their website. The genetic section was well referenced and expressed. Obviously he is the one that is removing facts from Wikipedia, led by hate to Serbian people. He cant stand the fact that Serbs have 30-60% of I2 Haplogroup which is speciffic to Illyrians. His fake reason for removal is that it should be written in prose. If don't like how it is written now, he can rewrite it in prose. But until then, the Genetic section will stay intact. I can not belive that even on Wikipedia hate to Serbs is clear and that obvious.--Aryanprince (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

What is the origin of the Serbian ethnonym? The talk header does not match your comment. What don't you understand? That section is a list of results from two Y-DNA tests. I repeat Data from genetic studies, found at Genetic studies on Serbs, should not be presented in its entirety here. Apart from taking up space, breaking harmony, the data from few Y-DNA tests is given undue weight and goes against primary sources guidelines. Furthermore, one needs to understand that Haplogroups are complex, and should not be used for POV. I want to note this in case of future disruptive editing. So the research has been done by the European Union? Woooow. I hate Serbian people? I don't care if Serbs have 1% or 99%, the results from tests are listed at that article, and not here.--Zoupan 03:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

And what about this? Bulgarians. The have genetics in their main article. Why don't you go and delete their genetics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryanprince (talk • contribs) 13:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

What about it? I am contributing to this article. You didn't answer me.--Zoupan 11:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You are contributing by hiding a truth that Serbs have 60% I2. That is your contribution.--Aryanprince (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

My contribution is compiling the Genetic studies together with VVVladimir, and overall, Serbian studies. Hiding the truth? I am confused over what you are trying to prove when constantly calling upon I2; why are you neglecting the other haplogroups? The table does already exist in its proper article, is not conclusive (preliminary), and is in the way of harmonious reading. Get it. Y-DNA results are going to be summarized in prose, and until then, stop reverting. The two Y-DNA tests from 2005 are present at Genetic studies on Serbs. Overall, Serbs show close Y-DNA makeup with the other peoples of the Balkans, who all seem to be a mix of 3–5 larger haplogroups. Are you aware that one Y-DNA haplogroup does not prove and decide what makes a Serb, and what doesn't. Any normal person understands that the Balkans are not of one "stock". Also note, that ethno-genetic studies are still not perfected. Every year sub-clades are renamed, added, removed, with their geography and age pushed, not to mention the lack of mtDNA analysis (!). Raw data should not be used in this article. Also, there is no study with the result 60% (you are basing this on one Herzegovinian result). A more realistic general incidence in Serbs is 30% at this stage. Now, stop it.--Zoupan 17:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

What harmony? The article is terrible and you speak about some harmony. You want to make it prose? Then make it, but until then I wont let you delete genetics. Other nation articles have genetics, Serbs will have it too. Go make some harmony on Bulgarian article whose genetics are written the same way Serbian genetics are written here and now. So, if you want to make it prose (because that is your reason), first you will have to make all articles about nations in prose, when it comes to genetics, and then come back and change Serbian genetics to prose composition. I think I am clear enough and rightful enough.--Aryanprince (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

No.--Zoupan 22:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Zoupan, the prose version of genetics is acceptable, I can confirm it and I wont revert it anymore, but hair color and eyes story is kinda wrong. Do you have any other source of this thmatic? Because as a Serbian I can confirm that more than 50% people have hair color other then black. I lived in almost all parts of Serbia, I born on Kosovo and Metohia, grow up in Central Serbia, Studied at Belgrade amd now I live in Montenegro, so I might know better how Serbs look like then this guy at year of 1956.--Aryanprince (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am afraid you are not a reliable source. The source says "50% black or very brown hair", which means that the other 50% doesn't have black or very brown hair. If you have a source saying otherwise, present it here.--Zoupan 03:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

When someone says 50% black OR very brown hair, the truth can also be 49% brown and 1% black, but the way it is written it forces the state "50% black", it is game of words. Does this source have detailed information about this? Also, does this source mention the skin color?--Aryanprince (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you trying to prove that Serbs belong to the so-called "white race"? You are calling Zoupan a Serb-hater?! That indicates that you have some serious mental issues. Please, do not try to "help" us any more with any Serbian subject on wikipedia. It is comical to assume that "Bulgarians" should be a model for writing any part of any article. The ridiculously long genetics section in that article is obviously a pathetic attempt to prove that the Bulgarians are not of Turkic origin (as it is commonly believed), but that "the Bulgarian population is genetically purely Indo-European" (!), citing some Bulgarian radio station and newspaper as sources (LOL). So sad... Aryanprince, what an absurd name for someone who represents himself as a Serb. Go away. Vladimir (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Ditto.--Zoupan 17:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Vladimir, do I really need to go again trough this? My personal name is Arijan, that is why my nick on english is Aryan+prince. I did not wanted Bulgarians to be the model, I only mentioned that article as a shame of Wikipedia, and instead of spending your energy on defending this terrible article, you should go on Bulgarian page and shut their mouth up. When someone removes the sentence where it is stated, proven and referenced that Serbs have 30-60% of Ilyrian genes that one does not mean good to Serbs. Instead, you should come and help me on page Sergio to show the World that this name etymology is Serbian, and from Serbian language. A worldwide name present in almost all western languages is from serbian language. You should do more of that stuff, instead of this what you both do here.--Aryanprince (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Aryanprince, to avoid confusion, and to avoid opponents exploiting it, maybe it would be better just to change your username to something else. Editors should be judged by their edit's not their usernames. Sergio is going to get a RfD from me. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

And you couldn't state this at his talk page? Now back to matters. Halpern: "According to Carleton Coon, the Serbs [...] 45 per cent with pure brown eyes and only 20 per cent with light; 10 per cent have light hair while more than 50 per cent have either black or very dark brown hair." Stop changing the referenced material into your Original research.--Zoupan 22:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, Zoupan, I just waited you to cite the book, now I can say you are terrible liar. You said "...while more than 50 per cent have either black or very dark brown hair...", while originally in book it says "...Over 50 per cent have black or dark brown hair...". So you added this word "very" to change the source and make us all fools or what? You think noone is reading sources right? Well today I readed the book you places here as source. This is why I will now again keep reverting your change because once liar always liar.The Races of Europe C.S.C. --Aryanprince (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I am a terrible liar? Here you go, again. (45 per cent with pure brown eyes and only 20 per cent with light; 10 per cent have light hair while more than 50 per cent have either black or very dark brown hair.). You like reading Races of Europe? Aryan-prince. Silly. Now stop it, It is a reliable secondary source.--Zoupan 22:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I cited you the original Book written by author C.S.C. where there is no word "very" in the statement of "very dark brown eyes". So this word "very" ether you or your source added (Joel Martin Halpern). I think the original author Carleton S. Coon should be considered, and not the one that cite him. So ether you or Halpern wanted to make harm to Serbian people with this change, which make ether you or him non reliable source.--Aryanprince (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

If the earlier source does not use the word "very", but the later source does and cites that earlier source as its only source for that particular data, then the earlier source is the one whose wording should be used to decide on article content. Halpern is citing only Coon for that data, Coon does not say "very", Halpern has added the word "very" for unknown reasons. So Aryanprince is correct on this use of "very". It should not be there. Aryanprince what wording/content do you want in the article? I think it would help if you put it all here as a whole, not little bits, all of it complete. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that whole story about hair and eyes color (which sounds like racism) should be removed from article. Another reason is that it would make Serbs maybe even a sole article where on English Wikipedia is talked about skin, hair and eyes colors. And last time when that was thematic in the World, Serbs where dying massively no matter what color their hair was. Zoupan charged me for racism but actually he was the one that added physical descriptions of Serbs in this article, and not me. So I will remove that content from article and hope everyone will be satisfied, including Zoupan, but Wikipedia project the most.--Aryanprince (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

How is it racist to talk about eye color and hair Aryanprince? And why does it sound that way? Is it the politically correct world we live in that doesn't allow you to read well researched reliable sources? That shouldn't be a problem for a well informed reader of Wikipedia. --MorenaReka (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is there content relating to hair colour or eye colour in the article? What does it relate to? There is no indication of what it signifies, or if it signifies anything at all. Aryanprince seems to be correct in saying that other articles do not have such content. I have looked and have not found anything similar. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have anything personal against talking about hair and eyes color unless it is not common thing on Wikipedia. Having in mind that it is not, and that this is a sole article where you want to talk about it, means that your intentions are questionable. I suggest you first to go and describe your own nation on its article and then come back here, you got it?--Aryanprince (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I find your response rude, and unrelated to the article Aryanprince. So that you know, there are genetics paragraphs in most well researched articles, such the French or Suedes. I have nothing against entering in the article genetic features in my own nation, Albania, but how is that related to this article? By the way, I find your edit-warring me very annoying too. I think you are giving a hard time to good editors, and not letting them improve the article. --MorenaReka (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Well I see you are a liar too. I never spoken about genetics, I spoke about anthropology, color of eyes and hair, they should not be in article, not genetics. So your Squiptar article is missing both genetics and anthropology, and it would be better for you not to force me to write about hair color of your nation, like you want for mine. Actually I fought for genetics 2 months to be present on article, because it proves that your nation is fake Ilyrian, and my nation has 60% Ilyrian genetics. But it is a common thing on this Wikipedia to try to cheat people around with the game you tried to play against me.--Aryanprince (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to cheat you, If you are admitting that you "fought" on Wikipedia, there's a problem. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 16:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

He is actually not trying to cheat me, he is trying to cheat you and as I can see he done it. This was the story. I said that I think that hair and eyes color should not be present on article for two reasons. First is racism and second is that there is no other nation's article where is talked about hair and eyes color. Then, MorenaReka said that it is not true that this would be a single article where is talked about it, and linked me French and Swedish nation articles and said that genetic studies are present in those and many others. Don't you see the point? He intentionally swapped genetics with the anthropology (hair and eyes color) which are totally different sciences, only to trick you, but he didn't tricked me. He wanted to justify presence of the hair and eyes color studies in this article by mentioning the genetics studies in some other articles, which is apsurd. That one should be called not only a lier but intentional lier. I know what I write, and i think twice first. You are the one who should read carefully all posts before you do any comments, and he is the one who should not lie anymore in my presence.--Aryanprince (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

That paragraph has genetics and anthropology, and if you wish to split it, that would be fine with me, but sciences are intertwined. I'm not trying to trick you, and you should stop offending me. Wikipedia is not a blog, please respect decorum. MorenaReka (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I can not respect a lier. You lie again. I want you now to show me some other nation article where they explicitly talk about hair and eyes color, not genetics. Lier.--Aryanprince (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You do not need to respect anyone, but the purpose of article talk pages is not to express that. Nor does it win any argument - if you ask questions without insults those you are insulting will be required to answer rather than being able to use your insult as a reason not to respond or to get rid of you. I think the data on hair and eye colour should be removed because it is old data from the 1930s, it exists without any explanation as to why it has significance either in the 1930s or now, and such content does not seem to appear on other articles. You also want it removed. Who wants it to remain? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

That information enriches the article. Removal makes the article poorer. I feel it can safely remain with the introduction of some wording "as of 1930s researchers found", so that the period can be properly qualified. --MorenaReka (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The fake research wont be in Serbian article and end of story, do you hear me Squiptar? There is not a single article on English Wikipedia with the same content, Serbs wont be different.--Aryanprince (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I heard you loud and clear Mr. Aryan, and now you are topic banned. Good bye! --MorenaReka (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Apart from some controversy regarding Aryanprince, I can agree with him and Tiptoethrutheminefield that hair and eye colour can be removed from the article. That info is of no great significance, beside being somewhat controversial. And I don't quite fit in those "more than 50 per cent" :) Vladimir (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, remove it. Such information belongs in articles about hair and eyes - it doesn't seem very encyclopedic to include it on an ethnicity page in a modern encyclopedia. - Anonimski (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The gallery of personalities from the infobox

I invite everybody to post their opinions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#The_necessity_of_galleries_of_personalities_in_the_infoboxes Hahun (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC can be found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Serbs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131205032421/http://www.serbianunity.com/serbianunitycongress/pdf/world_of_serbs/Serbs_Around_the_World_by_Region.pdf to http://www.serbianunity.com/serbianunitycongress/pdf/world_of_serbs/Serbs_Around_the_World_by_Region.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Origin of the name Siberia from Serbs

Some theories on the name Siberia in Asia may come from the word Serbia. There were many Serb immigrants in the Russian empire, notably settled in the Ukraine, but they were recruited to settle the vast lands of Siberia in the 15th to 17th centuries. Due to the desolation of much of Asian Russia in contrast to European Russia, Siberia later was translated to "emptiness" and "exile" as a place for exiled Russian prisoners colonies and Soviet-era gulags. 2605:E000:FDCA:4200:D962:2182:F3EB:EEB3 (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

NO. Utter rubbish. The entymology of the word comes from Turkic/Tatars. These native peoples lived in Siberia for centuries before any Serb set foot there. Please do not pollute the Talk Pages with unsupported nonsense that does not aid in the benefit of the article(s). 98.67.0.31 (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

There are many theories, but in order to introduce them to the article the theory needs to have been published in some, preferaby scholar, source because Wikipedia values verifiability. If you could bring the source that talks about that theory, we could discuss it and see if there is enough ground for it to be introduced in the article or not. Where have you read that about Siberia comming from Serbia? FkpCascais (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Editing the information box

Hi, I feel that the information box of this page is a bit messy and does not show all the information that it could. Also, a flag could be added as I have seen one on many other pages. A definition of Serb and an explanation of the difference between a Serb and Serbian would be very helpful for readers as many get confused between the two terms and what they mean. It would also be relevant to the article. I tried to implement these edits however they immediately got removed so I guessed it would require a discussion on the talk page for the edits to be permanent. Thanks Ninjakick121 (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

There is already a hatnote (at the top, see Serbians linked). Do not confuse between Serbs and Serbians; Serb diaspora and Serbian diaspora already exist as stand-alone articles. User:Ninjakick121/sandbox does not look the least good. The box is for significant populations. Do not use the flag in the infobox. Thank you.--Zoupan 16:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok I suppose how the info box looks is just subjective but it is fine. Reason for no flags? You have just stated that there should be no flags twice and I have seen them on a lot of other pages. Thanks Ninjakick121 (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Native to/Related groups

Hello, I have made an edit and corrected "native to the Balkans" to "native to Serbia". Not all of Serbia is in the Balkans. For example, Northern Serbia lies on the Pannonian Plain, which is in Central Europe and is not on the Balkan peninsula. TO say Serbs are "native to the Balkans" is false.

Second, I edited the "related ethnic groups" section and added Eastern Slavs to the group. User:FkpCascais keeps changing everything I write. Eastern & Southern Slavs are both Slavic groups, thus sharing a common heritage. Not to mention, they both tend to be Orthodox Christians. Removing Eastern Slavs from "Related" ethnic groups deletes useful and accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xentshion (talk • contribs) 18:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD when your contribution is reverted, you don't continue edit-warring and restoring "your contribution" by force by it is up to you to come to the talk-page. Another editor is also against your "contribution" so it is time for you to explain here (with sources) why exactly you think your contribution is right.

Point by point, yes, part of Serbia is outside the Balkans peninsula, but so it is also wrong to say Serbs are native only in Serbia, because Serbs are also native in many of the surrounding countries, specially refering to Republika Srpska within Bosnia and Herzegovina, and much of Montenegro where Serbs are vast ethnic majority.

About your theory of special relation between East Slavs and Serbs, could you please provide a source for that? Thank you. The languages of East Slavs are actually less intellegible for Serbs than Slovak for exemple. It is well knwn the influence Czech had in Serbi-Croatian. Serbs are closely related to Sorbs which are West Slavs. So the "special link" between Serbs and East Slavs (I dare to say actually just Russians) seems folclorically exagerated myth rather than scholarly confiirmed reality. In the meantime I will remove "your contribution" per WP:BRD until you gain consensus here for your edit. If you revert again, it will be a fourth time, and I will report you which will most certainly leave to blocking your account, cause 3 are the top number of reverts tolerated within 24 hours in one article. FkpCascais (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

12 million Serbs

I would think there aren't more than 9 million Serbs worldwide. What's the source for the 12.5 million figure? 23 editor (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

More generally, the statistics on pages like this are always contentious and as a result of that, mostly a mess. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

As you said, it isn't only confined to this article. I wish more serious editors would fact-check and monitor such contentions. Just look at Albanians, Albanians in Turkey and the edit war over at Croats. Everyone seems certain that their ethnic group is twice the size it really is. And usually by including crypto-x from Turkey into the overall figure. Pathetic. 23 editor (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I was involved in the Croats situation yesterday. Frankly, I tend to regard the statistics on pages about ethnic groups as unreliable first, until checked, as they are continuously changed and adapted, mostly without any explanation. It's baffling! Also I sometimes check the sources given for some of these statistics and it happens sometimes that the figures in the sources are quite different from the text given in the infoboxes. It's a problematic issue. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree we should find reliable sources for the total number. There is an old discussion at Talk:Serbs/Total number.--Zoupan 19:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The 12.5 million figure (12,445,350) source is the Serbian Ministry for Diaspora (Office for Cooperation with the Diaspora and Serbs in the Region?) according to the Serbian Unity Congress.--Zoupan 19:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, at least those figures add up in a sensible way. But if they are accurate? Perhaps they should be dispensed with altogether..... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I prefer to believe to a free country Ministry data than personal doubts of Wikipedia editors. FkpCascais (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Gallery of the United Nations Flags 1996-Present

From 1996-Present Same as United Nations Flags Renel Gonzi (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorbs and Serbs

Why nothing is written here about the Sorbs, who were the ancestors of the Serbs? Is it not important to know who were the first Serbs? I don't have editing skills, just mentioning 178.48.177.1 (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Serbs. 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/20160127135312/http://www.srpskadijaspora.info/vest.asp?id=2056 to http://www.srpskadijaspora.info/vest.asp?id=2056
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110916135844/http://www.maticasrpska.org.rs/casopisi/istorija_74.pdf to http://www.maticasrpska.org.rs/casopisi/istorija_74.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rs.one.un.org/organizations/12/Serbian%20Diaspora%20and%20Youth,%20June%202011.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Serbs. 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/20131213100306/http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/Census/2013%20Census/data-tables/totals-by-topic/totals-by-topic-tables.xls to http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/Census/2013%20Census/data-tables/totals-by-topic/totals-by-topic-tables.xls

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

World population

Used to be detailed as 10-12 million and now it just shows 10 million. The article itself says that diaspora serbs vary in number from 2-4 million so why not be consistent? who made this change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.178.4 (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Number of Serbs

By the Serbian Diaspora office there is about 11 to 12 million Serbs. I think there is more than 10 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.214.244 (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, 11 to 12 million is more than 10 million.--2003:EE:3F2C:B542:95C1:89BD:68D3:800A (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No way. Serbian Diaspora office is not neutral source. Per Ethnologue the total number of the users of Sebian language in all the countries around the world is 8,594,866. Jingiby (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Per Vladimir Grečić HOW CAN THE SERBIAN DIASPORA CONTRIBUTE MUCH MORE TO THE DEVELOPMENT AT HOME COUNTRY? published in the BULLETIN OF THE SERBIAN GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY 2016; Original scientific paper UDC 314.74 (=163.41) DOI: 10.2298/GSGD1602063G, p. 68: it is estimated that overall, Serbia has a diaspora of 3.5 million people. By the last census Serbs in Serbia were 6 Mill. people. How did yoy calculate 12 Mill. Serbs? My calculation follwing two reliable sources above is: 8.5 to 9.5 Mill. And please, do not delete my comments and sourced info. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Serbs from BIH are not diaspora, since they are autochtone constituent people. There is over a million of them there. Serbs in former Yugoslavia nowadays number close to 8 million. The 3-4 million diaspora is from outside of Balkan, and that is figure of 11-12 million. Also, page about Croats and Albanians vastly overestimate their number, if you estimate in the way Serbs are counted here. For instance, Croats in the sense Serbs are 10 million would barely make 7 million, but somehow added 2 million of "descendants" of Croatian origin (who do not speak croatian, or rather serbo-croatian) in USA to stretch number to 7-9 million. Corresponding number of Serbs is in this way easily over 12 million, in fact, in Turkey alone, there are 9 million people who have some Serb origin (they are not included as Serbs in any count, but by the logic of count of Croatians, there would be over 20 million people of Serbian origin if counted this liberally). So, serious anti-serbian bias here, the conservative estimate and range of 11-12 million was removed by antiserbian POV editors, who are numerous. Number of 10 million just cannot stand, it is an underestimate even of the people who use only Serbian language, and many in Serbian diaspora (second generation) are not fluent Serbian speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.204.144 (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Serbian language - audio recording

Do we have any recorded and uploaded sample of Serbian language on Wiki? That would indeed be a nice addition to the page. Mm.srb (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

There are many examples, such as pronunciation of AV's and other significant people's names. Those are not needed in this article as it is not about language but other topic. --Obsuser (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Image in the infobox and its caption

Image that was put in the infobox (File:Srpska_nosnja.jpg) with the caption "Traditional Serbian costumes from Šumadija" should have get some altered caption because one does not care about Serbian costumes from Šumadija if these are not actually Serb costumes from Šumadija (and how will reader know at the very beginning that Šumadija as a Serbian region is mostly Serb populated)? --Obsuser (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, captions on Wikimedia Commons are English: Serbian national costume, Српски / srpski: Српска народна ношња and Русский: Сербский национальный костюм which is completely inconsistent. If it is Српска народна ношња (people's [i.e. ethnical] costume of Serbs), it cannot be Сербский национальный костюм because it is not national costume of all Serbians (there are Bosniak people's costumes of Serbia too, for e.g., but there are no Bosniak national costumes of Serbia or any other country) but only is folklore/ethnical/people's costume of Serbs from Serbia's region Šumadija where they make majority. --Obsuser (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

That's why I put "Traditional Serb costumes from Šumadija", and it has been reverted – even though English Wiktionary has a proper definition for the term Serb (as well all all meanings for the term Serbian, second of which is relating to Serbs, and that one is unfortunately [for some] not appropriate for this occasion here). In the article Serbian traditional clothing you will find šubara and Montenegrin Serb Dusanka vest (instead of Montenegrin Serbian Dusanka vest, beacuse article talks about Serbian traditional clothing and not Serb traditional clothing) too, which are from ethnic Russians and ethnic Montenegrins. --Obsuser (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Serbs are not a nation

Please see also other Wikipedias and you won't find that Serbs are a nation. They formed a nation but those who formed it – along with other who belong to it – are called Serbians, Serbians are a nation (they have passport/state). Please don't mix these two terms because it's WP:POV to call all national Serbians Serbs. There are other etnic groups besides Serbs in Serbia. --Obsuser (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted your additions because they are unsourced. Please provide WP:RELIABLESOURCES for all your claims. Dr. K. 11:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This "idea" is so ludicrous that I won't comment on it. Do you even know the difference between Serbians and Serbs? Stop with the vandalism and pushing your POV. I understand that you think that you have a point - but you don't. Mm.srb (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I reverted to the pre edit-war version as I failed to see where in the sources "Serbian" (in English!) is discussed as a separate adjective from "Serb" (in English!). Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I've reverted your revert. The information is sourced and, upon review, reliable. It doesn't belong in the lead, but I think it's a good addition to the article. Non-English sources are allowed per WP:NONENG. One of the sources is in fact in English and discusses the use of "Serb" vs. "Serbian", though the sourced in Serbian are more verbose. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@AlexEng: - Non-English sources are allowed, yes, though English sources are preferred. However, in this particular case, we are talking about use of "Serb" and "Serbian" in English - "The adjective for the English term Serbs". I don't see where the cited sources support the English language usage here. As for Serbo-Croatian - per AJ for instance - this seems to be a contested topic. Please provide a quote (+translation - as required in WP:NOENG), from the cited sources, supporting - "The adjective for the English term Serbs (i.e. Serb in its singular form) is "Serb" and not "Serbian", which is an adjective for the noun Serbians (i.e. Serbian in its singular form) or for the noun Serbia.".Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this on talk, not via edit summaries/edit warring. This article is subject to discretionary sanctions from ArbCom. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, AlexEng, it would be a good idea to speak at least the basics the said non-English language before jumping into the edit war to keep the contentious material in. Per WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN, challenged material should stay out of the article during the dispute. Exceptional claims such as this require exceptional sources, and an Al Jazeera opinion piece hardly suffices as a RS for linguistic material on English usage, and a treatise of certain Branko Đ. Nikač titled "A few Greater Serbian forgeries" hardly inspires confidence. No such user (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Language of the sources is not important because meaning is important and not language in which something is said. It is paradoxal that "Sky is blue" is more valued as Wikipedia reference than "Der Himmel ist blau" (if published by reliable source of course). --Obsuser (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Linguistic considerations aside, I'm inclined to remove the claim that "Serbs are a nation" from the lead, as the article clearly pertains to Serbs as an ethnic group. Serbia is a nation in modern sense indeed, but it should not be conflated with the ethnic group it was . When precision is required, we tend to use "Serbians" for inhabitants of Serbia and "Serbs" in ethnic sense on Wikipedia but this distinction is far from universal in the real world. No such user (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree for the first part because pure truth is that Serbs are not a nation. Second part: I agree too, except that this distinction is far from universal in the real world because only for Serbs it is not universal, for other people distinction does exist; even other people in Serbia don't call themselves Serbs but Serbians. Only problem is that other world languages don't have word for Serbians so they use same word for both Serbs and Serbians (ru Сербы, de Serben, fr Serbes, pl Serbowie). Difference exists primarily in South Slavic languages because they know exaclty who they are talking about, citizens of Serbia or ethnic/people group. Check also where in the main body of the article Serbs are reffered to as a nation; nowhere. I suggest thus first to remove from the lede that they are a nation, and then to add back well sourced* paragraph about difference in the adjective usage (whether to the lede or down there in the new section Nomenclature or whatever we call it).

* I say well sourced because if you really checked references I added you would have found these (I will cite relevant parts, translate them as English translation in parenthesis and add explanations when needed after ndash):

• first ref, prometej.ba: Prema tom tumačenju, pridjev “srpski” vrijeđa Bošnjake i Hrvate, a pridjev “bosanski” vrijeđa Srbe, iako žive u državi koja se zove Bosna i Hercegovina. (English translation: According to that interpretation, the adjective "Serb" ("srpski") offends Bosniaks and Croats, and the adjective "Bosnian" ("bosanski") offends Serbs, although they live in a country called Bosnia and Herzegovina.) – This means that adjective Serb offends Bosniaks and Croats (as well as Romani people, Polish people and all other ethnic groups that live in Serbia) because it cannot be applied to them; they have their own native ethnic affiliation (previously mentioned, Bosniaks, Croats, Romani, Polish etc.) and calling them Serbs (because Serbs are not a nation) implies they are ethnic Serbs (Serbs by their ancestry, what is exactly goal of the historic ethnic Serbian nationalism, what is also stated in the paragraph I provided). All those peoples, Bosniaks, Croats, Romani, Polish etc. can only be called Serbians if they have passport of Serbia because they are by nationality Serbians (not Serbs).
• second ref, balkans.aljazeera.net:

• third ref, academia.edu:

The cultural landscape changed too: a process of ‘Serbisation’ of the region began. ... Both Albanian and Serbian cultural objects were targeted in the years of conflict ... whose staunch opposition against Kosovo’s independence is deemed essential by the Serbs – decorates posters and billboards), represent ‘pieces of Serbia in Kosovo’ as everything is written in the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet and Serbian ? and inscriptions ‘Republic of Serbia’ decorate the landscape ...

• fourth ref, hrcak and fifth Nikač talk about language and ethnic appropriations, respectively.

See also "J.P. Mallory and D.Q. Adams, "Protect", The Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture (London: Fitzroy and Dearborn, 1997)" where it is said for English exatly that noun Serb is A person of Serb descent (not necessarily from Serbia). (Compare Serbian.) and as adjective Serb Of or pertaining to the Serbs; Serbian. (wikt:Serb#English).

Also note that Serbian language Wikipedia follows SANU reccomendations of using Serb when meaning citizenship, so in the lede of the articles on this language version of Wikipedia it is said "''NN_person'' is [[Serbia|Serb]] ([[Srbija|srpski]]) ''proffesion_placeholder''", what is inconsistent, NNPOV (non-neutral POV) and bias in the favor of Serbs. Somewhere, where there should be national and not ethnic affiliation there was ethnic affiliation with no explainable reason: "''NN_person'' is [[Serbs|Serb]] ([[Srbi|spski]]) ''proffesion_placeholder''".

After all this, it is impossible to conlude that this topic is not relevant for the article on Serbs. There are some facts that need no source, such as different usage of possesive adjectives in Serbian and Bosnian language due to political-ethnic-linguistic malversations (these can be checked in official ortographies: link for Serbian and the download link for Bosnian (other link)). --Obsuser (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Serbs, an ethnic group, formed the Serbian nation as of the 19th century. The editor who started this debate does not understand the difference between nation and national. His thinking is based on the present-day situation. The idea is that all the citizens of Serbia are Serbians (which would be correct in English) and thus making Serbians a nation and not Serbs. It is just a POV which has been pushed too far.

In all honesty I can’t belive that such a poor hypothesis has been given so much space. It is an idea pushed by a small circle of people in Serbia, such as far-right political activist Miša Vacić. There is no support for this idea in any of the relevant academic circles either from Serbia or abroad. I do not see this sort of discussion about any of the other nation of Europe or the Balkans. That is, I have seen poor attempts to something of the sort on Ukranians. It is most problematic on several levels.

If only one of the total five sources is in English, @AlexEng: how did you manage to read the rest and make a fair judgment on the matter? Going with an undo in a heated situation like this is not the way to go in my book. I learned that the hard way.

I in fact took the time to read all of them. 1) Paper by Marko Samadržija titled “Nekoć i nedavno” does not say a word on the matter - ZERO. 2)Al Jazeera is a regional media which often pushes Bosnian that is Bosniak POV and using it as a source on this (more serious question, I dare say) is not reliable. Even more so if we take in consideration that the content of the article is tabloid like, with a populistic title and so on. 3)The academia paper (in English) does not discuss the difference of Serb-Serbian.  Secondly, it’s not even about Serbian nation. Could you point out the page in which you found such a discussion? 4) prometej.ba does not mention this matter, NOT ONE word. It’s topic is the name change which happened after the Bosnian war. The same portal often publishes articles full of hate speech and nationalistic dribble. 5) The cited papers by Nikač are mere pamphlets. The author is a nationalistically driven publicist and has no proper education on the matter. Pat of the quoted writings which I managed to find did not say anyhing on this matter. He is the sort of go-to guy for forum warriors and such bunch. No credibility whatsoever.

To summ it up - those sources are pretty much rubbish and it is a clear citation overkill in attempt to mask those refs as legit.

Serbs as an ethnic group form the Serbian nation. That does not meant that Serbs are not a nation. I do not think that it can be any clearer. Writers in English often do not make this difference. There is another level to it when it comes to regional meaning.

Furthermore, I did not find any official definition for the alleged nomenclature (Oxford d. and others) that is Serb-Serbian, in this context.

The restored text suggests that Serb do not know how to call their own nation or language. Not to mention terrible style…

I can’t belive that life was given to something like this.

Taka a closer look at:

https://books.google.rs/books?id=2Wc-DWRzoeIC&pg=PR16&dq=Serbs+as+a+nation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKqOWb_87jAhVM_SoKHQEoBxE4ChDoAQg4MAM#v=onepage&q=Serbs%20as%20a%20nation&f=false

https://books.google.rs/books?id=NB_TCBY-jooC&pg=PA181&dq=Serbs+a+nation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZqY7I187jAhWEfZoKHT89BDM4FBDoAQgoMAA#v=onepage&q=Serbs%20a%20nation&f=false

https://books.google.rs/books?id=XAEauYA7rrMC&pg=PA135&dq=Serbs+a+nation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZqY7I187jAhWEfZoKHT89BDM4FBDoAQhTMAc#v=onepage&q=Serbs%20a%20nation&f=false

https://books.google.rs/books?id=RDq8b_8Q_gEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Serbs+as+a+nation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE2ujL_s7jAhUJ-aQKHaJWBpsQ6AEIQjAE#v=onepage&q&f=false Mm.srb

https://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Worlds-Minorities-Carl-Skutsch/dp/157958392X - page 1083.

(talk) 20:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

They did form the Serbian nation but they themselves do not represent it (completely), they themselves did not become nation after forming the nation (which consisted, at the time they "formed it" of other ethnic groups too, it was not 100% Serb society but with other ethnic groups too). Nation, national and nationality have same root meaning, pertaining or making the relationship with state (and not an ethnicity). Of course it is based on present day situation, I won't base it on 200 or 100 years old world law nor Yugoslavian law which had political motivation to put nationality instead of ethnicity in the census. Yes, but that is not the idea but factual state of matter; you are giving logically impossible statement at the end, thus making Serbians a nation and not Serbs, because Serbians are a nation but that does not imply they cannot be Serbs too (some, i.e. most of them, but not all!). It is just a POV which has been pushed too far. I think ethnically nationalist Serbs have actually POV pushed too far, making all Serbians Serbs; POV means point of view, and neutral point of view is that not all Serbians are Serbs becaus there are some Bosniaks, Croats, Romani, French, Polish, Russian, Macedonian, Montenegrin, Turkish and other peoples there (other ethnic groups there among all Serbians). It is clear as sunny day who's pushing non-neutral POV, not exactly clear why but it is clear who's pushing non-neutral POV.

And I cannot believe that such a funny idea of calling all Serbians Serbs and calling those Serbs a nation succeeds in some situations. It is an idea pushed by a small circle of people in Serbia, such as far-right political activist Miša Vacić. There is no support for this idea in any of the relevant academic circles either from Serbia or abroad. – Of course you are wrong here; in Serbia maybe there is some small circle putting truth in front of lies, but in BiH all media uses adjective srbijanski (Serbian) when referring to the nation and srpski (Serb) when referring to the ethnic group, and that does not bother English people because they say too that Đoković is a Serbian player and not Serb player (it just bothers ethnically national Serbs, not all Serbians of course and not all Serbs who know that they do not make Serbian nation alone). I do not see this sort of discussion about any of the other nation of Europe or the Balkans. That is, I have seen poor attempts to something of the sort on Ukranians. It is most problematic on several levels. Of course you don't see it because Serbs are only ethnic group in the world that wants to declare all the citizens in their national state in which they make majority as belonging to their ethnicity (I can call it tribe because ethnicity is tribal/ancestry category and nationality is citizen/state category). Ukrainians are both ethnic group and nation (with different meaning if you mention ethnic Ukrainians who are sole ethnic group and national Ukrainians including ethnic Russians and other ethnic groups in Ukraine; it is said right now in the lede of the article on Ukrainians that they are both ethnic group and a nation, so I do not see any problem there).

Proof that you are biased is you saying Bosnian that is Bosniak. You don't recognize Bosnians and Herzegovinians as a nation and make them equal to Bosniaks, who are just one ethnic group (and not a nation, that makes up Bosnians and Herzegovinians as a nation). Al Jazeera is realiable actually and not pushing any non-neutral POVs, and title is not populistic but "truthistic". You make cited works miserable and consider five of the works you found (written by people, same as Nikač or any other scientist) as holly. Prove nationalistically driven publicist and has no proper education on the matter.

I will copy you: Those books.google.rs sources are pretty much rubbish and it is a clear citation overkill in attempt to mask those refs as legit. Btw, we use books.google.com and not .rs as international and neutral domain.

Serbs as an ethnic group form the Serbian nation. That does not meant that Serbs are not a nation. I do not think that it can be any clearer. Writers in English often do not make this difference. There is another level to it when it comes to regional meaning. – Pure illogicalness. You falsely concluded from "Serbs as an ethnic group form the Serbian nation." that "That does not meant that Serbs are not a nation." because Serbs as an ethnic group form only part of the Serbian nation and do not form the Serbian nation, thus meaning that Serbs are not a nation. Now it cannot be any clearer. It is pure lie that writers in English often do not make this difference because writers in English mostly (if not in almost all circumstances) use the adjective Serbian when referring to primarily Serbians and much more rare to Serbs; do you read titles about Serb tennis players: no; why, because you don't read titles about Bosniak basketball players who play for USA because ethnicity is irrelevant subject in the modern world, you only hear about American players (USA is nation and not ethnicity, same as Serbia; Bosniak is ethnicity and not a nation, same as Serbs; Croat is both ethnicity and a nation but Croatian would primarily be a nation and Croat would primarily be ethnicity, if one want to make difference when using English names for those men and women)...

There is another level to it when it comes to regional meaning. – There is no region Serbia nor region Serbs so there is no regional meaning.

I cited Wiktionary i.e. reference used in Wiktionary term that gives only one meaning on Serbs. Is it valid or you will deminish that author's reputation too?

The restored text suggests that Serb do not know how to call their own nation or language. Not to mention terrible style… – It is completely irrelevant per se how one calls himself/herself if it is not true. If Jackie Chan comes to the stage one day and says loudly "People, I'm a German." it does not mean Wikipedia lede will begin with "Jackie Chan is a German actor" etc.; it would only mean note on him saying what he thinks he is would be added. Same with ethnically national Serbs; we need to put true meaning of the term Serb, with additional text on what ethnically national Serbs regard Serbs represent (maybe all Serbians as I could understand from your biased philosophy). What is a terrible style? Why don't you fix the style instead of deleting everything?

Of course it was given because some people wan't some answers on how other people want from all people to call these first ones.

Your sources are: first one from a Serb Sima M. Cirkovic, second one from a Serb again Aleksa Djilas, third one you won't believe from a Serb again Jovan Byford, fourth one from some Slavic man again Toma Longinović and fifth one unverifiable source (book is not available if one does not buy it, so putting page 1083 does not mean a thing for a reader who wants to check info in it and compare it to Wikipedia statement). If you think you can "buy" anyone with John Wiley & Sons, Harvard University Press, Central European University Press, Duke University Press or Routledge as publishers – that story does not weigh a pound because those people working in such institutions still write from their own heads, exactly the same way as Nikač or any other man (you or me) does; I don't say someone with doctor degree and someone with high school are competent the same level, but don't exclude those who don't have institutions behind themselves automatically as nationalistically driven publicist and has no proper education on the matter without citing proofs for that statement.

And try to find ICTY lawyers and judges (I mention ICTY because there was much talk about Serbs and ethnicity-nationality differences during the trials and other sessions there), or any other world competent lawyers and jurists (don't choose only Serbs or those biased) calling Serbs or Bosniaks a nation. Anthropologists and sociologists could make mistakes in their works, but you won't find mistakes in proper jurists' "works" because they know law and terminology better than those who invent it every several days – one day with this meaning from one author and the other day with that meaning from another author etc. (i.e. such work vary from one scientist to another, as how they interpret and understand terms; whatsoever, they take right to define them in their works, but there should only be one legal definition of a nation for e.g., don't mix legal and some-scientist-out-there-working-on-some-prestigious-or-less-prestigious-university-somewhere-else). If you do find such a lawyer or judge or jurist who calls Serbs a nation or calls all Serbians Serbs or calls Serbs automatically Serbians, I will not comment anything anymore. [e] --Obsuser (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you honestly excepct a well-argumented and an adult like discussion after something like this? Linguistic manipulation in order to discredit the existence of a nation, a clear POV, is as low as it gets in my book. You do not get the basic sociological terminology. The same logic could be applied on Croat-Croatians, Bulgar-Bulgarians and so on, all under the notion that minorities live there, which is yet another pseudo-argument. You misinterpreted some parts of my answer. I do not care to explain further, because you are clearly not here to discuss but to force your views, which can be well seen on the case of casual dismissal of notable sources published by some of the great experts and on the matter, in publishing house with top-notch standards, like the one by Sima Ćirković. I just saw that you have been permanently banned on Serbian Wiki because of something like this and other violations as well. The rest is buch of pseudo-arguments, like calling out some ICTY lawyers and their views. I will just quote this one - There is no region Serbia nor region Serbs so there is no regional meaning. I would be most grateful if other editors were to take a look at the total of five sources which I have provided above because I think that they should be included in the article. The book in question (Amazon link) can also be found on Google Books. Mm.srb (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a distinction here between referring to a nation state (such as Serbia) and a nation of people (Serbs). Nation was the term used in Yugoslav historiography to refer to the various major nations of peoples, ie Serbs, Croats, Macedonians etc, that formed Yugoslavia. In that context, it was not used to mean the constituent republics (nation states), but to the peoples of that ethnic group within Yugoslavia, who were spread across the country in different republics. The intersection between the nation state and the nations of people was often referred to as the "national question", and was made more complex in those areas of Yugoslavia where the nations of people were very intermixed, like Bosnia and Herzegovina, than in relatively homogenous Slovenia, for example. The reliable sources, reaching as far back as Vuk Karadžić, refer to Serbs as a nation of people, this is so common in the literature that I don't understand how you could think otherwise. For one explanation of this, see Between Nation and State: Serbian Politics in Croatia Before the First World War by Nicholas J. Miller. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2019

Genetic Studies[edit source] I propose to change the wording of the following passage: Genetic studies on Serbs show that they have close affinity with the rest of the Balkan peoples, and especially those within former Yugoslavia

Perhaps you can replace the word "especially" to specifically. I read the reference to it and I don't see this written anywhere in the article. There is no "close affinity" with all the Balkan people. There needs to be more precision here if you wish to say "the rest of the Balkan peoples". In the passage above it indicates that Serbs are very close to Albanians, Greeks and Romanians genetically but if you see their DNA results from ancestry there is quite a difference. Or perhaps the close affinity is referring to haplogroups, which then should be stated as such. Shebashiba (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Clarified by Jingiby – Thjarkur (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional names in diaspora

Perhaps you can also add the following names to the paragraph listing Serbian American actors : Lolita Davidovich, Sasha Alexander, Sarah Sokolovic, Bojana Novakovic. (Judy Greer has a Serbian grandmother, though this may be a stretch.) Ivan Petrovich was a well known silent screen actor in Germany, during a time when German cinema was as important as Hollywood’s. He also sang opera and did a few films in Hollywood. Sasha Montenegro was an actress famous in Mexico during the 1970’s. Film maker Slavko Vorkapić was a pioneer of Hollywood montage between the two world wars.

As for music,Lene Lovich is a well known New Wave singer. Luigi von Kunits help found the Toronto symphony, in Canada’s largest city. Ana Sokolovic is an award winning composer and Alex Lifeson is a member of the legendary rock band Rush (band). Filip Filipi is a hip hop producer who has worked with big names like The Weekend and Drake. Roksanda Ilinčić is huge in fashion design, as is French fashion designer Stephane Ashpool. German industrial designer Konstantin Grcic has won many awards, and Sacha Lakic designs for big firms in France. Writers in the diaspora include Aleksandar Hemon, Prvoslav Vujcic and Olivia Sudjic.

You should really include Marina Abramovic in the arts section. She is one of the biggest names in art today! Maja Pantić could be added to the list of scientists. She is a British scientist currently working in the field of artificial intelligence. Since information technology is a growing sector in Belgrade, perhaps there are more names from the IT field. Mileva Maric’s name is also missing from the list of scientists. She should be included, not just for being married to Einstein, but also for being a physicist at a time when few women in Europe were.

I hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.169.185 (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input and time! I will add the mentioned names somewhere in near future. Sadko (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I have added some new notable names. Others are just not that relevant for the article. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Sadko, Seeing as the Serbs have a rich and varied music scene, also reflected in the diaspora, perhaps you can extend the music paragraph by adding a sentence or two about contemporary musicians.

That way the following musicians could be included : Alex Lifeson, considered to be one of Rock’s top guitarists and member of legendary rock band Rush (band); Ana Popovic, blues artist who regularly tours all over North America; Lene Lovich, a leading figure in the New Wave scene and therefore should really be included; Ana Sokolovic, an opera composer whose work “Serbian Wedding” was presented in several North American cities, jazz trumpeter Duško Gojković and finally Ljubica Marić whose classical compositions are considered to be some of the best of the later 20th century.

Serbian musicians extremely popular within the former Yugoslavia include Zdravko Colic, Sasa Matic, Ana Nikolic, Zeljko Joksimovic and Bajaga (whose music was heard in a 2019 episode of the American TV show Seal Team). For a tiny nation, the music scene within Serbia is quite impressive, equally reflected within the diasporo, which is why I am proposing extending the music paragraph. All the best.

Proposed deletion of Category:Slavic countries and territories

It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is related to that category. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Serbs. Krakkos (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2020 (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:

• Srpska nosnja.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Serbian Height Myth

This “study” has multiple flaws and is completely unreliable. It only covered a sample of about 400 people, all of whom came from the same university and many from the faculty of sports. Anyone who has a basic knowledge of statitics will conclude that this study has sampling bias and is not reliable. The sentence should include the fact that only 0.0001% of the adult population was studied to avoid misleading readers. One who reads this paragraph would think that the results of this study have the same credibility as the results from the Netherlands. Which is clearly not the case, the Netherlands analyzed 96,8% of their adult population and the process was conducted by the government and not by students as it is the case for Serbia. Also the error intervals are extremely high, 7cm makes a huge difference when measuring body heights! N.Hoxha (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

You can publish your own academic work which could refute the quoted work. Otherwise - there is no point. Studies are usually done on smaller samples. Some works which aimed at giving % of haplogroups per nation used even smaller samples. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not right. This study is clearly extremely small and its reliability is questionable. It does not stand on its own to be rendered in Wikipedia's voice. It is clearly WP:UNDUE to include it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

We have another ref. Some tweaks could be done about the wording. And, yes, it is right that various studies by respected scientist include samples similar to this one. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we need other refs for this. A quick look indicates that there are others available. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Serbs are amongst the tallest people ,that is common for the most of ex Yu nations, there were more than one study (foreign) on this matter and it does not have to do with just genetics but with nutrition too, level of protein intake etc. https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/average-height-by-country/ And btw . the credibility of the studies is veryfied since the first comment neglects the fact that the studies were made from different researchers in different time but the results are very similar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.44.96 (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to add the study was the matter of the longitudinal research not just a one time survey and it is conducted in all countries reguraly so what is written in a first comment does not make sense

Genetic Studies

I propose to change the wording of the following passage:

Genetic studies on Serbs show that they have close affinity with the rest of the Balkan peoples, and especially those within former Yugoslavia

Perhaps you can replace the word "especially" to specifically. I read the reference to it and I don't see this written anywhere in the article. There is no "close affinity" with all the Balkan people. There needs to be more precision here if you wish to say "the rest of the Balkan peoples". In the passage above it indicates that Serbs are very close to Albanians, Greeks and Romanians genetically but if you see their DNA results from ancestry there is quite a difference. Or perhaps the close affinity is referring to haplogroups, which then should be stated as such.

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:

• Desanka Maksimović oko 1950..jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring ,peacocking ,disruptive editing etc

@Peacemaker67: Since you posted a notice that I'm involved in edit warring without any further explanation on your definition of peackocking and during this process you have also erased my contributions to the page asking me to use RS WP:CITE I've decided to post here what I added in the article : 1. Zeljko Obradovic won nine euroleague titles not eight , for that I will redirect you to his article page Željko Obradović in hope that this information about him is RS.In this article he is also : "Generally considered as the best European head coach, and regarded by many as the greatest European head coach of all time" with 4 sources that backing it up. 2. I've added Ivan Miljković to the list since he is considered to be one of the best volleyball players of all time, in some rankings he is even placed better than Nikola Grbic. [[1]] 3. Sprint canoeist Milenko Zoric and Marko Tomicevic are current world record holders in their k2-1000 m event respectively, world champions and olympic silver medalist. There are not many current world record holders from Serbia at the moment. [[2]] 4. Nemanja Majdov is so far only judoka world champion in history from Serbia and only second one from the region to achieved that (including EX-Yu sport), not even olympic medalist Kovacevic and Obadov managed to win gold medals at WC . [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Judo_Championships_Medalists]]. 1.Question : Why did you decide to put a Hungarian citizen with Momcilo Tapavica since that kind of description is not relevant to the article that describes "Serbs" and there are no descriptions of that kind behind other mentioned athletes of Serb origin who represented other nations and are also mentioned in the article ? 2. Question : What part of the sport section of the article is peackocking since it is obvious that in same cases wording like "the best" ,"the most successful" are backed up by the sources ? I am certain that your intentions are towards improving the article and not some personal bickering against other users but it is easy to notice that you decided to post this changes after one other editor decided to expand the article , so just to clearify this up, do you agree with my edits in the article and would you give an answer to my questions.-Theonewithreason (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

My intentions are always towards improving articles, and that requires reliable sourcing and citations of all material. I'm not saying these things you claim are untrue, I'm saying you need to cite them and that is not negotiable. You can't use another WP article as a source because WP isn't a reliable source per WP:CIRCULAR. You need to find reliable sources that say all of these things and add citations to those sources to THIS article as footnotes. But some of this is just WP:POV. For example, Tapavica won his medal for Hungary, not Serbia, but it is presented here as if he was Serbian by nationality, which he was not. What sources back up "Serbian players that made a great impact in Europe" and "The renowned "Serbian coaching school""? BTW, "renowned" is classic puffery and peacock language. There are no citations to back up any of the material in that para at all. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Tapavica did won a medal for Hungary ,but he is the only one mentioned as a Hungarian citizen for example Pete Maravich is only mentioned as a player of Serbian origin. That is why I asked.He was also presented as a "first Serb and Slav to won a medal" his nationality was not mentioned. I agree with you that other WP articles are not RS ,I posted them since it was easiest to find and yet again they are also relying on secondary sources,like in case of Zeljko Obradovic. On the other hand I also posted other sources ,secondary ones ,like in case of Ivan Miljkovic, so can I add him to the article with the source and put the others when I find secondary sources ?

As for peacocking , there are sources that are backing up the terms like " renowned basketball school" like this one: [[3]] that support the fact that serbian coaches won 16 euroleague titles and had the most final four appearances (36). This source qoutes that the serbian basketball school is most successful : [[4]] , we also have people who influenced great changes in basketball and are Serbs : [[5]] so I don't think that in some cases the word renowned is missplaced. Anyway I would like to read an opinion of other editors too and since I posted some other secondary sources I would like to contibute to the article.-Theonewithreason (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead @Theonewithreason:, feel free to make changes, nothing is controversial here. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

no-one is stopping you from editing the article, you just need to provide reliable sources and citations to them. Like literally every editor on WP. It isn’t hard to do. So do it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

O.K. then thank you both, just a minor change for now, I would like to change from eight to nine euroleauge titles (by mentioning Zeljko Obradovic), I believe since that information is mentioned in his article page we don't need special source ,but since you insist ...-Theonewithreason (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you do need a source here, even if it says that on his article page. That's my whole point, you can't use another WP article as a source. At all. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The lead

@Sadko: Per Template:Kosovo-note This needs only be done once. The note should then be placed similarly after the first instance of "Kosovo" or "Republic of Kosovo" or "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" etc. in the main body of the article. Again, it need only appear once.. Also the note was created with the main idea of preventing usage of locational entries like: ... disputed province of Kosovo, ... Kosovo/Serbia, ... Serbian province of Kosovo, ... Serbia (Kosovo), etc.. If we look for Your preferred version I count only for the lead and the infobox three notes reffering to the status of Kosovo. 1.Kosovo described as a disputed territory 2.the general Kosovo note 3.the footnote (b) which is basically the same as the general Kosovo note. You also reverted the minor correction of laof2017 who just placed the countries in the right order based on the number of Serbs inhabiting these countries. This order is absolutely correct. It's also used in the infobox of this article like it's the case in any other ethnic group infobox on Wikipedia. I consider the last change of the lead made by me as a very neutral version. Kosovo is mentioned with the preword territory not country and the general note is added. Crazydude1912 (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: You can't just tell me to discuss the issues about the lead and the Kosovo note on the talkpage, and not participate in here. In that case i have to restore my edits. Crazydude1912 (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Crazydude1912: I agree that the text description the disputed territory of Kosovo combined with the Kosovo-note is too much for the lede. However, according to Template:Kosovo-note/doc, it is recommended to include the note both in the lede and in the infobox, so you have removed too much. I have reinserted the notes according to the documentation. I have also changed the internal notes in the infobox to asterisks to avoid confusion between different "a" notes. Regarding the listing of countries/territories in the lede, I will suggest to avoid completely the distinction between neighboring countries and territory, which may easily be seen as not neutral. I have made a stab at a slight rephrasing. --T*U (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I am a busy man. You should seek the wider consensus here, that is how the project functions, I'm sure you know that. So far the proposed changes have not been accepted. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead section March 2021

The information being added to the lead section by {u:John L. Booth} is not lede appropriate, is undue weight, and is not reliably sourced. It maybe that a compromise sentence can be added but any thing else would go in the body.Pipsally (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock:Orchomen.

There are more problems here so any changes (in this edit) must be explained first. Mikola22 (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The "Education and science" section

I believe the section Serbs#Education and science (permalink: [6]) doesn't belong here. Because the reasons for this also concern a few other articles, I've brought it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#The "art and science" sections of some articles. – Uanfala (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This is all sourced material and as we can see on Bulgarians, Albanians, Italians, Greeks, Han Chinese, Arabs, Czechs, Romanians, Indian people etc. pages, it is also presented but all of the sudden it is a problem to mention some people being Serbs, really? This is obvious WP:GAMING. Theonewithreason (talk) 16:51 19.April 2022 (UTC)

How Roger Joseph Boscovich is of paternal Serbian origin? This is a fringe theory, maintained only by Serbian researchers. Jingiby (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

There are different sources about his origin, but you also removed Tesla, Milankovic and others what is excuse for that? Theonewithreason (talk) 17:03 19.April 2022 (UTC)

I had removed most of the similar content from the Bulgarians article a few months ago, and I'd also support the removal of the remaining two paragraphs at Bulgarians#Art and science. There are few other ethnicity articles with similar content, almost all of them in the Balkans (I wonder why). As for Albanians, I don't notice anything of that sort there, am I missing anything?. The place for this type of content (where relevant at all, and at a suitable level of detail) is within the country articles: Serbia#Education and science, etc. – Uanfala (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a whole section of arts and literature that mentions significant people on Albanians page, anyway there is no restrictions to mention those people on any wikipedia page, as for Serbs page, some of the most renowned Serbs were in that field, so removing it does not make any sense.Theonewithreason (talk) 17:15 19.April 2022 (UTC)

There are no objections to including such material on the country articles, what we're talking about here are the ethnicity articles. – Uanfala (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

For this material previously there were no objections from anybody, which means that if you want to remove it, first you need to reach a consensus, second, this rule then needs to be applied on every article and that is a big decisions by a multiple editors, I would recommend a restriction until those requirements are achieved.Theonewithreason (talk) 18:04 19.April 2022 (UTC)

We already have the implicit larger-scale consensus: with the exception of Serbs, Bulgarians and a couple of other pages, no ethnicity article includes such content. – Uanfala (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Well if you look above after a short search I have found a lot more than a few pages containing this sections in the article, who knows how many of them are there so obviously there is no consensus, I also saw that nobody answered you when you posted that on March 9th [[7]] so like I said you need to reach it, as for this page, my vote is oppose.Theonewithreason (talk) 18:30 19.April 2022 (UTC)

• No sourced material will be removed. I saw funny comments by Uanfala how nations with "inferiority complex" write about results of their academics and scientists. FYI, there is no such thing in psychology. On the contrary, based on my casual observations over the years, I dare say that the majority of Serbs feel superior to most of their neighbors, who were on the losing sides of both world wars. And they respect only Greeks as superior to them, in the Balkans at least. Jingiby, that theory is NOT fringe, it is just another legit theory, which can be traced from the early 20th century Britannica to contemporary academia. Once again, do not remove sourced material just because you "think it is better". Soundwaweserb (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  No sourced material will be removed – Good! I'll now add a brief section on crime. Surely, if an article is going to have lengthy sections about the scientific, artistic or educational activities of a nation, it makes sense to at last attempt to cover other aspects of their social life. We've listed the most notable scientists, so let's now list the most notable war criminals as well, like Ratko Mladić and Radovan Karadžić. This information will of course be sourced, so no-one will be able to remove it! – Uanfala (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Read WP:POINT and please spare us from your rants and cynicism, it is of little value to anyone, yourself included. Once you get a wider consensus, and have the sections removed on Italians, Greeks, Albanians and so on, you can return and bring forth your ideas. Have a good day. Soundwaweserb (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  And how about you read WP:NPOV? If we're going to showcase the notable scientific achievements of individual members of a group of people, neutrality would require us to also mention the equally notable deeds of other individual members in other fields, including ones that are not seen by the world in a positive light. – Uanfala (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

"Romanized"

Considering Serbian is a language that can written in both cyrilic and latin, wouldn't it make more sense for the lead be as such:

The Serbs (Serbian Cyrillic: Срби, Serbian latin: Srbi, pronounced [sr̩̂bi])

? ImStevan (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)