Talk:Serbs/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Albania: No Serbs, but Montenegrins

According to the Census 2011:
In Albania are 366 Montenegrins or 0,01 % of population and only 66 people or 0,002% spekas speak Serbo-Croatian.[1] Irvi Hyka 18:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Last census is useless as source regarding ethnicity and religion. See the discussion here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Minor specifying concerning the ethnonym

Сърбам in Bulgarian means sip. I think this has nothing to do with the serbs... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.239.160 (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

2 Pictures

I really like the set of these pictures, but i think someone is missing, i propose there should be atleast one picture of one of the Serbian ex-monarchs of the Karađorđević dynasty... Like the well known king Peter I of Serbia .... ot perhaps his son Alexander I of Yugoslavia. While i think 2nd picture that should be added is definetly Balkan wars and WW1 heroine Milunka Savić, the most-decorated female combatant in the entire history of warfare! How can such a person be overlooked, i dont understand. In exchange of these 2 pictures (one of the karađorđević kings and milunka savić).... I think Nikola Pašić (former politician) and Marina Abramović (artist) should be respectfully removed, considering both of their life works are/were "great", but they should "give room" for pictures of persons who are of even greater historical meaning. (Правичност (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC))

Okay, King Peter I is a good candidate, Stojan Novaković is the second, and give me two more good candidates (women?) and I will create a new picture - 4x7. How about Zoran Đinđić? Mm.srb (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the picture is excellent! (The important historical persons, time sequence... everything) If you are willing to add 4 more pictures, that would be great. However i personally think Marina Abramović (who already "enjoys her glory" at the "Serbian American" article is enough for her lifework and connections with serbia and serbian people), therefore i think she should be removed and replaced with another person from modern age, so in this case i propose 5 new persons would be added. (4 new and 1 replacement (marina abramović). While all others are excellent.

I highly disagree with adding Zoran Đinđić- i think "mixing in" modern political boundness can be controversial (none of the politicians from modern age), i would rather stand behind adding persons who are recognized, known, respected and mostly accepted by not only serbs but also foreigners... (like if you add for example: ana ivanović, pepole who come up this article will see her and say "oh look ana is here, o yea, she is serbian!" - because she is known in the sport world, mainly because of her beauty, but also her tennis career (she was in top 10 (also no.1 and top 3) for a long time), but she is also loved by serbian people. About Stojan Novaković,... idk, must say i love history, but i never heard of him, i recommend someone else instead (someone more known and accepted by serbs), but if you wish to, you can put him too. But heres my proposal list of the 5 pictures; or 4 if you dont wish to remove M. Abramović).

I propose only these:

1.) King Peter I (majoribly respected historical person, leader and hero of serbian people)

2.) Milunka Savić (the most decorated female combantant in the entire warfare history in the world! and ofc a serbian heorine from balkan wars and ww1.). Or Stevan Sinđelić (hero from serbo-turkish wars known for his sacrifice).

3.) Milan Obrenović (official liberator of Serbia and starter of Obrenović dynasty (leader of 2nd serbian uprising) or Knez Mihajlo (Very known and respectable prince amongst Serbian people (Knez mihajlova street)).

4.) Desanka Maksimović (writed poems for almost 70 years, very respectable and known person even by todays children in serbia, republika srpska etc..) or Bata Živojinović (Probably the biggest film actor of former yugoslavia and serbia, very known in China also. along with Mija Aleksić, Dragan nikolić etc...)

And instead of Marina Abramović: - Željko Joksimović (not a personal big fan... but he is certainly one of the well known serbs in modern days in europe, all the way since eurosong 2003) , or perhaps Ana Ivanović - symbol of both tennis and beauty (probably most known female sportist from serbia in modern times)... (eventough we already have 2 well known sportsmen) (Правичност (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC))

Here you go (and there is another version btw.) - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Serbs_28_persons_mosaic.jpg Mm.srb (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Im sorry for a late response, i didnt notice you wrote it here, and as i said on the official talk page. This looks absolutely marvelous! great work! :) (Правичност (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC))

Mm.srb's mosaic looks good, but the addition of Andrić may be controversial, particularly because he's listed as being a Croat on that article.23 editor (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

actually 23... andrić declared as a serb all the way to his death and as a serbian writer himself, if croats can claim him for declaring as a croat in his younger years, then we have a good reason to claim him too. (Правичност (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC))

I'm not debating whether or not he was a Serb. I'm simply pointing out that it would be controversial to include him. 23 editor (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Its just as much as controversial for Serbs, that Croats claim him, as well as the other way around, so its better for both sides to claim him i guess. However i dont see much controversy here at all, Andrić himslef declared as a Serbian writer of Serbian language and declared as a Serb by his own will... so there would be more controversy from Croatian side to claim him than Serbian side i guess. Imagine if Bosniaks wanted to claim Kusturica - even though he claims he discovered his family tree is Serbian by origin, he declares as a Serb and he is a huge Serbian patriot..that would be just as much controversial.(Правичност (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC))

joshua project for total population

I ask the editors, if they think this source : http://www.joshuaproject.net/peoples.php?peo3=14864 . . . can be used for a wider estimation of total Serb population? And if it can id like to propose this idea for a change on the total figure: ...Perhaps "c. 10 - 10,8 million" ? - (since the figure in that source shows a number close to 10,8 mil. (10.763.000) summed by a total of 36 countries.

(Правичност (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC))

I believe this source can be used, so in the article to say something like "10.5 - 10.8" with this source for the higher number and the existing source for the lower number. Adrian (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That would be a good idea (similar to "Croats" article) or perhaps something like "up to 10.8 million" (similar to "Bulgarians" article-using both sources). If its okay, i would kindly propose if someone could make a change. (Правичност (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC))

You have posted this on 15 February, let`s wait until for a couple of more days(2-3 days) to see if someone will participate just to make sure since this is a sensitive matter, and has something to say. After that we will make the change. Adrian (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed (Правичност (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC))

I have added 10.5 - 10.8, because we have 2 references for both numbers.Adrian (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that Joshua project is used on several occasions when it comes to the population number therefore I think this changes are OK.Adrian (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Even better then, good edit! (Правичност (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC))

However someone changed the figure to c. 10.5 ? 10.5 apples or something... (Правичност (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC))

An editor is claiming for the Joshua site to be unreliable, but I see this source used on many places. If that would be the case, it would be removed there too a long time ago. Adrian (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Joshua project source is used on articles: Serbs - for population outside Serbia, Macedonians (ethnic group), Croats and Bosniaks. If it is reliable there, why not here? Adrian (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it is used everywhere. (Правичност (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC))

Btw, i just found this source on webstie -its official Jat airways website (serbian airlines) and it indicates a figure of 5 - 15 000 serbs living in united arab emirates. wonder if this figure and source can be used in the infobox? http://www.jat.com/active/en/home/main_menu/travel_info/jat_review/april_2007/makame_iz_novog_vavilona.html if it is i recommend for it to be included under the "africa,asia,oceania" section. (Правичност (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC))

Joshua Project is not reliable. It is obviously ridden with original research.--Zoupan 23:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

At first I wasn`t sure(100%) that Joshua Project is reliable but after seeing that it is used on several articles I changed my opinion. If you believe that this source is unreliable please consult the ANI board regarding reliable sources. Also if you think that Joshua project is unreliable, please don`t remove the Blic source ([2]) which is a reliable source from a respectable media. Adrian (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Zoupan from your talk page i can see you have done alot of flames and vandalism against pages about anything Serbian (like trying to change Njegoš into being Montenegrin rather than Serb), so your appearance and goals here dont surprise me. (Правичност (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC))

Please concentrate on the content, not on the contributor. WP:NPA. We are all here to help, unless proven otherwise. An editor has expressed his opinion about a source, if he wishes he has the full right to question it and there is a ANI board for reliable source where this can be solved if needed. Adrian (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Im sorry, didnt mean to be rude. (Правичност (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC))

The one that has changed the number shoudlve added atleast a word "million" and the small A letter as "10,5 million a" to indicate higher estimations exist.

This source http://frontal.rs/index.php?option=btg_novosti&catnovosti=0&idnovost=19032 and figure by a respected demograph Stevo Pašalić for Republika Srpska news agency interview says there are around 12 million Serbs around the world today (in aprox. 100 countries of the world) for example. (Правичност (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC))

Data for Germany useless - Germany 2011 census

New Data for Germany which shows more then 350.000 Serbs less from the last data (only few years ago) is totally controversial and useless. The 2011 Germany census WAS NOT acredited to give people chance to ethnically identify, one was given only a chance to reveal which country did he immigrate from (only by domestic citizenship).

Therefore this figure of ~197.000 shows only a number of people who hold the 2006(2006 montenegro broke up from serbia) -2012 "independent Serbia (with our without Kosovo)" citizenship, other hidden figures of ethnic Serbs that arent part of the "Serbien (mit oder ohne Kosovo)" - "197.000 figure" are classified under the "Serbia & Montenegro, FR Yugoslavia or even the old SFR Yugoslavia immigrants", not to mention how many Bosnia, Montenegro and Croatia classified immigrants in Germany are ethnic Serbs... we cant for sure know how many, but counting all of these facts, the figure of ETHNIC Serbs should go up to 1 million people; immigrants with more citizenships and their passed on generations who dont even hold any of ex-yugoslav citizenships in Germany.

If you dont know anything about that German census, and if you dont know what an "ethnic Serb" and a "citizen of Serbia" means, then dont input false and unreliable datas please. I repeat the census DOES NOT show ethnically declared Serbs, but only those who declared as "from 2006 onwards- Serbia immigrants"

i propose we rather use the old source, or this source: http://www.zentralrat-der-serben.de/index.php?SrbiuNj untill we find a better one (if it will be available).(Правичност (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC))

That is utterly wrong-headed. For example, the 2011 Australian census significantly reduced the number of Serbs, because (prior to that census), the bean counters at the ABS thought that if someone said they were Yugoslav that automatically meant they were a Serb... Who knew? lol. Anywho, in 2011 they actually asked the appropriate question and guess what, there aren't as many Serbs, because some of the previously "Serb" Yugoslavs weren't actually Serbs at all. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

infobox vandalism

Whoever is vandalising the infobox - changing the number of Serbs in Germany, Bosnia and total population to a lesser number with unreliable sources/or ignoring other sources, with a goal to input a lower figure with an argument of his own personal thoughts regarding what do the sources tell; but also removing the Bosnia flag from "significant Serb populations" (and i cant see who, because im not acredited to edit the infobox), should be STOPPED and BLOCKED from doing so in further. The infobox and its recent changes have been made by a cooperative work of editors, and therefore should be respected, while vandalism or serbophobic vandalism of data should be stopped and perpetrators warned and blocked afterwards. (Правичност (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC))

Of all the peoples in the United States we have reliable data U.S. census Irish people, Austrians, Czechs... Правичност gives unreliable data POV.--Sokac121 (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that US census deals with ethnicity of the people?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

These are certainly more reliable data of blic.rc and krajina.force, we have official information from the Bureau of Statistics. (are not listed official figures of German Bureau of Statistics) I do not know why manipulating official data--Sokac121 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You based your position on US census. Please be so kind to explain if you are sure it classifies the ethnicity in the way which corresponds with ethnicity classifications on the Balkans?

I think that both of you should stop with mutual accusations and edit warring.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

krajinaforce.rs source is not used anywhere. second- BBC,Blic,B92,USASerbs and many other sources point out a figure of around 1 million, i have also found sources saying between 1 and 2 million people of Serbian ancestry in the US (a 300 mil.+ nation). Alot of sources also indicate that Serbs in USA mostly arent aware of if they can declare ethnically on censuses, because the declaration is based on "race" - so people here input white, black, american, african american, irish, italian, slav, whatever they feel like... thus serbain organizations in usa started to encourage people of serbian ancestry to identify as serbs under the race... but they mostly dont cover up alot of population with their actions....etc. etc.. ministry of serbian diaspora estimates around 1 million people of serbian ancestry in the usa.... Serbs in USA declare differently, alot of them as Yugoslavs, Eastern Europeans (former Illionis governor of Serbian parentage Rod Blagojevich declared like as mentioned) or Slavs etc... while many reside there illegally. Higher estimations of certain ethnic ancestral groups in the usa exist on many ethnic group pages, this is why i dont see a reason why Serbian article shoudlnt have that right... and i havent manipulated any data at all, i infact left the ~188,000 delcared and simply added a higher estimation with reliable sources which can be found everywhere. This is why my opinion is my edits are "fine" and this data should be left as it is. (Правичност (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC))

Could we perhaps make some compromise similar to the one found at English people where the English American are mentioned? Basically the 49.5 million number there corresponds to the 1 m number here at Serbs. FkpCascais (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I did`t had the chance to check the source for the USA numbers but I would like to ask for some editors to check the references for the higher estimate of the total population (A There are 12 million Serbs worldwide including ancestral diaspora,[1][30][31][32][33]) at the bottom of the infobox before making any changes to this number. Adrian (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

For you, a journalist Blic.rs N. Vlačo a more reliable source of American Bureau of Statistics. Also, in Infobox are not listed the official data from the German and Austrian Bureau of Statistics. What is a proof that this is POV.--Sokac121 (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I did`t said that, I am just saying that there are several reliable sources for the 12 million number. Adrian (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

ALL figures in the infobox and body of the article must be inline cited to reliable sources. None of this "oh, the one at the bottom is from blah, blah blah, so the rest must be wrong coz they don't add up" stuff. Sheesh. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

and what the hell is an ancestral diaspora? Just because some fella living in Paris, Texas had a great great grandfather born in Subotica doesn't make him a Serb. Some people on here need to get some perspective. My country is full of people that married people from other places. One of my grandmothers was born in Australia of two Manx parents, but that doesn't make me a Manxman. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are the sources about the 12 million number in detail ([3]) and in the article they are here (A There are 12 million Serbs worldwide including ancestral diaspora,[1][30][31][32][33]), excluding number 1 source. As for the "ancestral diaspora" I was surprised too, but I did`t wanted to add oil to an already what is starting to be edit war by removing that statement. Adrian (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Mate, I can't read the lingo. So, to me the only credible one I can read is the EC one. That's it, although it provides no basis for its estimate. How many, for example does it say are in Australia? Because despite the ABS clearly being a bunch of numpties when it comes to defining what a Serb is, they are actually exemplary in how the census is conducted and the data. I can't speak for other countries, but I know my own. As far as the others are concerned, a government agency that gets funded on the basis of how many Serbs it says there are isn't exactly my idea of a reliable source independent of the subject. You know what I mean? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I automatically assumed that you speak Serbian. I will try to explain all the sources here.

• Serbian Unity - In English, data presented by the ministry of Diaspora and NIN(am independent media publication).
• Dr. Nišić`s book: 12 million (Online version of book "Croatian Storm and Serb migrations", by Dr. Stanko Nišić, Belgrade 2002) - (read end of page 14, under "2.Rasprostranjenost Srba") - The sentence "Укупно има око 12 милиона Срба, од чега их највише живи у отаџбинским земљама:" (In Latin script: Ukupno ima oko 12 miliona Srba) = in English "There are 12 million of Serbs total". If there is a problem with a translation, anyone can check this with google translate.
• Demograpfh Stevo Pašalić`s statement: 12 million (Frontal.rs) - Headline "Пашалић: Срба има око 12 милиона" - In Latin (Pasalic: Srba ima oko 12 miliona) - in English "There are about 12 million Serbs (in the World)".
• Serbian language speakers worldwide: 12 million (European Comission site (linguistic source)) - The linguistic site is clear.

I hope this clears the problems about the higher estimate of 12 million. I understand your idea abour reliability, but for example Serbian Unity is funded and controled by the State of Nebraska (USA) and Demographer Pasic and Dr.Nisic are reliable since they study this subject. Adrian (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Now hear this

Oh really Peacemaker? Are you saying someone in USA who has English and Serbian roots would be rather counted as an Englishman? So French, Spanish, German , Italian articles... they who have ancestors in distant lands can simply consump and swallow up smaller ethnic groups and therefore have right to count those numbers on their ethnic group articles, but ethnic groups like Serbs are restricted from this right? Is there really 124 million Italians, over 100 million English people etc. etc.. ? or would half of those rather be counted as something else since they live in Australia, USA, Canada etc..?

And Šokac! :) i know you would just love it if we would include Austrian and German censuses which arent ethnically based, of how many serbia citizens live there, because that would put a shadow over those who are citizens of Bosnia or other balkan states, or are only citizens of Germany, born as a 3rd or even 4th generation, BUT STILL Serbs by ethnicity - and therefore the number of "ethnic Serbs" would be 3 times smaller by that ;).

AND IVE HADED WITH THIS... It is quite obvious that 2 or 3 Nationalistic Croatian editors have started all of this because they are bothered that there is 12 million Serbs, among all the sources they claim the number is unrealistic because they can only count 10 million from countries in infobox, while they claim Croats article is realistic with 8,5 million eventough i can count only 6 million from their infobox. It is clear they want this number reduced maximumly for no reasonable reason but because of their nationalistic "battles" for whos gonna have more numbers. they would most ratherly wanna see 5 million serbs and 10 million croats (eventough its the other way around ofc.).

Now heres an example:

• Now Here is source for Croats total population: [4]

• And here is one of the sources for Serbs total population: [5]

Now tell me why is Croats source reliable and Serbs isnt?

Is it because Serbian source is Serbian? Is it because its written in Serbian cyrillic and you arent able to read it because you cant read cyrillic? Or is it because this book includes also a describal and consiquences of the croatian millitary action "Oluja" which expelled over 200,000 Serbs out of Croatia in 1995? is it unreliable because of this fellow Croatian editors and other editors?

• What makes Daphne Winlands text about 4 million Croats inside Croatia and 4,5 million outside of it ~from "Encyclopedia of Diasporas" 2004...
• more reliable from Dr. Stanko Nišić`s text about a total of 12 million Serbs worldwide, out of which 6 million live in Serbia, 1,5 million in Rep. of Srpska, up to 600,000 in Montenegro (back then it was still a state union between Serbia & Montenegro and it also doesnt mention Croatia afterwards...) and 4 million in diaspora (you can find this text on bottom of the page 14 under 2. Распрострањеност Срба; after that it talks about Serbs living worldwide (USA, Canada, Australia etc...)) ~From "Croatian Storm and Serb migrations" 2002 ?

Tell me what? and dont cry on krajina force.rs page about being nationalistic bla bla... that page doesnt have anything to do with this book and its publisher.

(Правичност (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC))

Правичност you missed a topic. This is talking about the Serb :D Why constantly you mention Croats?--Sokac121 (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Dont try to turn away attention from what i have said. Croatian editors started this "war" and im talking about everything you editors had to say to me and why you wanna change Serbs number. Think of a smarter argument. (Правичност (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC))

"now hear this?" What? No WP:OWN problem here is there? The racial paranoia is ridiculous. The above shows you are comparing the total number of Croats and Serbs, and you appear to be set on "proving" there are more of your people than there are of the other people. Wake up. And the answer is yes, I would think they would identify as English. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I wrote now hear this, so someone can finally see whats the issue. i think You should wake up... you are ignoring reliable sources and supporting croatian editors "battle against unjustice and serbian propaganda". And no, i am not competing here, the croatian editors who started all of this mambo jambo seem to be competing. I dont have to proove something that is obvious, demographic history shows Serbs always counted about 1x more than Croats... if your American for example i doubt you know anything about that... but thats not the issue here, the issue is croatian editors disagree with our sources, disagree with 12 million, raid infobox and change numbers, but support their own sources and their own inflamed numbers if i may say so. ... Ah so you do think it that way dont you, .. that tells alot about you i dont even have to comment. All hail the more important and pure English race! And nobody is being rascial, its just funny how obvious it is when 2 or 3 croatian editors come up the article and are like: "12 million?? whatt? noooooo! hooow? serbian propaganda! not true! 12 million? you are lying all those people with propaganda sources! and then edit ware, edit ware etc..." ... and if you dont know wht im tlaking about, then that means you havent been into this issue or talking to any of those editors lately since the issue occured. (Правичност (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC))

I'm afraid I really can't understand your prose. I suggest you slow down, re-read your comments before hitting save and try to fix the grammar and spelling. I am sympathetic to the fact that English is not your first language, but I just can't follow the thread of what you are trying to say. All I expect here is compliance with WP policy and guidelines. Use reliable sources independent of the subject. That means the Serbian Department of the Diaspora or whatever it is called, is not a reliable source. Neither is the joshuaproject. The EC document is fine. The individual country figures also need to be from reliable sources independent of the subject. The Association of Serbian Americans (or whatever) are not going to be a reliable source for the number of Serbian Americans because they are not sufficiently independent of the subject. I can't be any clearer. Just to show I'm on the level, I'm going to have a look at the Croats article now to see what sources they are using. I will hold them to the same standard, WP standard. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Well English language is my third language actually. When updated the Serbs infobox i inputted some sources right after the number, while those containing a letter have also another set of refferences in the footnotes tabelle (after citations). Joshua project source is removed, all of the individual countries have sources independent from the subject, The source you mentioned as "Assoc. of Ser. Americans" -by which you probably mean the "Serbian Unity Congress" (right ?) is NoT used as a source for number of Serbian Americans; Blic,BBC and USASerbs links are used for them. Like i said, all individual countries have their own sources (also in footnotes), i have updated them my self and consolidating with some other editors on how the infobox looks present, they said its fine. But after that a number of Croatian editors started to vandalize the infobox, stating figures for total population and USA are too high, propagandal and they said sources are unreliable or sources dont exist, this is why i presented one of the sources here above ("Croatian Storm and Serb migrations, 2002, by Dr. Stanko Nišić) which is used for total population among the "EC" source (you mentioned yourself above). So all participating parties can take a look and see where it mentions 12 million Serbs etc... While sources for USA; i have presented them many times just like ive mentioned them again up above. Its simple what im trying to say not only to croatian editors but to all here and i claim;
• We have reliable sources for a higher estimation of total population and we have reliable sources for a higher estimation of population in the U.S. and we will NoT use census sources of Germany-for example or any other countries which censuses didnt have possibility for ethnicall declaring, but only citizenship declaring. And if croatian editors complain 12 million is too high because they can only count 10 or 11 million from idividual countries inside infobox i can claim same for their "Croats" article and their total population which is 7.5-8.5 million, while i can count only 6-6.5 million from individual countries inside their infobox. I see this as foolish, when we have many sources for 12 million... This is why i support an idea of holding all ethnic groups, especially Slavs groups in this case to the same WP standard as you said yourself. hope you understand now greetings (Правичност (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC))

• Sure. However, among the reliable sources there are unreliable ones, some transparently so. serbianunity says 12 million, and bases this on a list of countries and figures. It lists 130,000 Serbs in Australia and New Zealand, and on the same table compares its totals with the Ministry which says 134,000. Unfortunately the census in Australia in 2011 says a tick under 69,500 or so. The most recent NZ census (in 2006) says 1,000 or so. All up Aust and NZ = 70,500 give or take a few dozen. Both of serbianunity and the Ministry are out by 60-65,000 or so. And that is when Australian and New Zealand data is easily accessible and highly reliable. A lot of the sources used look like hopeful guesses to me. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree on that, eventough earlier australian census had almost 100,000 Serbs (including Yugoslavs) ... so those figures are estimated as how many "by ancestry" are Serbs probably, atleast thats what i would say... but remember we already had a discussion, that its also hard to describe what a Serb actually is nowadays... For example you have Serbs who declare as Yugoslavs or Montenegrins, just because they are proud to announce where they come from... but in person they would say they are Serbs or feel Serbian, or simplly adherents of Serbian Orthodox Church and describe their language as Serbian... while on the other hand you got Serbs who declare Serbo-Croatian is their native language (for example in Slovenia over 10,000 Serbs declared so)... this complicated situation is mostly because of "Yugoslavism" during ex-Yugo times which mostly "infected" Serbs... (Правичност (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC))

• That is complete conjecture, they "feel" they are Serbs but don't write in the census? What? I'm sorry, but none of that is even slightly relevant. Either there are reliable sources independent of the subject, or there are not. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Data on the number of Serbs in America:

http://www.blic.rs/Vesti/Svet/185441/Samo-u-Cikagu--zivi-oko-400000-Srba

Za razliku od popisa iz 2000. kada se oko 140.000 ljudi izjasnilo kao Amerikanci srpskog porekla, na ovogodišnjem izjašnjavanju očekuje se njihov daleko veći broj, s obzirom na procene da u SAD živi između milion i dva miliona američkih Srba, sa oko 400.000 samo u široj oblasti Čikaga.

Who is estimated? We do not know, maybe a journalist.

http://www.usaserbs.net/states/immigration-waves.html

It is assumed that today between 700,000 and one million Serbs and Montenegrins reside in America.

Who assumes? We do not know.

Someone assumes, someone says. No one source is not reliable. We can not with such unreliable sources dispose. Yugoslavs are not only Serbs, and you are them all put in Serbs--Sokac121 (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Peacemaker no matter how many declare it is hard to say how many people are Serbs or of Serbian ancestry on this planet... We have 4 sources that say 12 million, some of these are quite reliable some are less, i know what you mean anyway; but we got sources for total population.

-And Šokac121 i will start the same question on your Croats page, you gave me a good idea... maybe then you will understand your unreasonable actions. And Yugoslavs are not all Serbs- true - but out of 1,2 million Yugoslavs in former Yugoslavia - ~75% were Serbs or partly Serbs... so what makes that? a vast majority dont you think? Dont forget state union of Serbia and Montenegro kept the name Yugoslavia (FRY) for another decade after the breakup of the country... all of that has influence on people declaring. The U.S. census however didnt give people a chance to particullary "ethnically declare" but "rascially" - as Race: ... so Serbs for example could also declare as Slavs, Eastern Europeans, white Americans, Yugoslavs... etc.. (Правичност (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)).

I want to make a solution here, so id like to hear your opinion on the USA total population and its sources (in infobox and at footnotes) i have provided. If majority of editors dissagree with the current figure we have, then we can find another solution for its est. number, if its by most fine we will keep it... But total population of Serbs on planet by my opinion should be left as it is, since it is Refferenced. So write down your opinions please: (Правичност (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC))

You can not, Slavs, Eastern Europeans, Americans, Europeans, Yugoslavs,. put under Serbs. When they do not feel the Serbs. The same is the case with the Montenegrins. Over 265,895 declared as maternal Serbian speakers, while over 178,110 declared ethnically as Serbs. Figure since 265.895 can be written the article about the Serbian language. An article in the Serbian language [6] In the Diaspora, the estimates, there are about 2,500,000 Serbs in 90 countries across the globe. I think that 6,2 plus 4 million maximum number.--Sokac121 (talk) 10:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: The topic (the total number of Serbs) could probably use a widely-advertised RfC (or some other way described at WP:DR). The problem with talk page discussions like this is that a few people with strong opinions end up arguing among themselves and generate huge walls of text that will drive away any outside editors who would otherwise be willing to participate in the discussion. Besides, both of you (Правичност and Sokac121) violated wikipedia rules and both of you were not very constructive till now. I think that you should now follow WP:DR. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I don`t believe that is necessary but if needed I have nothing against. We have several reliable sources about the total number. I will copy a part of my comment with the sources here.

• Serbian Unity - In English, data presented by the ministry of Diaspora and NIN(am independent media publication).
• Dr. Nišić`s book: 12 million (Online version of book "Croatian Storm and Serb migrations", by Dr. Stanko Nišić, Belgrade 2002) - (read end of page 14, under "2.Rasprostranjenost Srba") - The sentence "Укупно има око 12 милиона Срба, од чега их највише живи у отаџбинским земљама:" (In Latin script: Ukupno ima oko 12 miliona Srba) = in English "There are 12 million of Serbs total". If there is a problem with a translation, anyone can check this with google translate.
• Demograpfh Stevo Pašalić`s statement: 12 million (Frontal.rs) - Headline "Пашалић: Срба има око 12 милиона" - In Latin (Pasalic: Srba ima oko 12 miliona) - in English "There are about 12 million Serbs (in the World)".
• Serbian language speakers worldwide: 12 million (European Comission site (linguistic source)) - The linguistic site is clear.

I hope this clears the problems about the higher estimate of 12 million. Adrian (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Adrian you said it all, no further discussions needed. (Правичност (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

I think for this citation of 1 000 000 million Serbs in Usa should write by ancestry..Because there are no one million ethnic Serbs in Usa..But there are Americans with serbian ancestry..But they don't identify as Serbs...So it should be written that one million is Americans with Serbian ancestry..yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

For USA there was ~187.000 figure as per census and for a higher est. of 1,000,000 there actually WAS a footnote which said estimation of american people with serbian ancestry go up to 1 mil. (it had also reliable 3 sources). But this footnote was constantly deleted by 1 or 2 editors from Croatia who disagreed with number and sources. (Правичност (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

You do not have a reliable source. You have three sources, where are speculating number of serbs. Fivefold increase in the number is POV.--Sokac121 (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes its a reliable source... statements, estimations by Ministry of Diaspora itself is a significant statement. (Правичност (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

[7] Ministry of Foreign Affairs Serbia estimated that the Serbian diaspora, including in this number and Serbs in the region is estimated at about 4.5 million people. and not 6 million. Other sources that I found give a smaller number of Serbs [8].

In Montenegro live 178,110 Serbs, and 274,000 people whose native language Serbian. In infobox should be data on nationality, and not about language. In Croatia, only 50,000 people speak the Serbian language, Those numbers you will not put in infoobox because You do not correspond--Sokac121 (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That is just one of the estimations, some estimations say 4 million with region some 4 million without.... and that Marko lopušina book you have found actually points out a figure of 11,5 million Serbs around the world, its just not stated on that same link you gave out.

You dont understand the meaning of "Montenegrin", just 10 years ago that was just a regional affilation mostly, atleast thats how Serbs understand it... 50,000 only in Croatia, that is natural, since Serbs are under alot of pressure living there, while montenegro used to be a Nation state of the Serbs "1000 years" before they reached new independence and invented a new language and ethnicity (and its ethnicity - not nationality). Šokac you can try as much as you want, but you wont change the total number, because we have sources... read again Adrian`s comment. Greetings (Правичност (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC))

I haven't followed this debate very closely and nor am I especially keen on doing so, but user Правичност's latest news magazine "source" which speaks of a staggering number of 9 million Serbs in Turkey is among the worst nationalist POV I've come across in ex-Yugoslav online magazines lately. It basically claims the Slavic Muslims in Turkey to be of a "forgotten" and "suppressed" Serb ancestry, when in fact a vast majority of Slavic Muslims in Turkey descend from Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) which emigrated following the collapse of the Ottoman empire. As a matter of fact, the National Security Council of Turkey (Milli Güvenlik Kurulu) estimates as many as 2,000,000 Turkish citizens having Bosniak (Boşnaklar) ancestry. Naturally however, in Serb nationalist circuits Bosniaks are really only "converted Serbs" without their own identity or history, and Bosnia has really only always been "Serbian". Eagerly pushing such nasty nationalist sources on wikipedia without discretion should see user Правичност subjected to some serious review. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 12:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Something about the Serbs in Turkey has here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Turkey#Serbs_in_Turkey.--Sokac121 (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Its not "my source" it was here before i even got to wikipedia. Maybe you should be subjected praxis. (Правичност (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC))

It's completely irrelevant whether you introduced the "source" or not since you were certainly active in defending it when other, better knowing, editors attempted to thrash it. If you are interested I have left you a lengthy, somewhat late reply on the Wikiproject Turkey page where I have, probably in vain, tried to awaken you from your nationalist coma. Just don't expect me to do you any more favors :) Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 03:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope not interested and i never did and never will ask you or any likes of you for a favour. (Правичност (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC))

Milla Jovovich

Why not add her to the infobox, which is significantly disproportionate when it comes to females? It should not really matter that she's "only" half Serbian. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

An excellent idea! Maybe her instead of Joksimović? 23 editor (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Actually I can't see why she was removed from the infobox to begin with, she has to be among the top three most famous Serbian females today. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 13:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I highly disagree, she is already on Serbian-American article.. placing here in smae mosaic with saint sava and živojin mišić is a disgrace for serbs article... thats my opinion, because shes never even expressed her pride about being half serbian, thus she is also on ukrainians article 8eventough he rmother was actually a russian from ukraine). Željko joksimović is a known person and the only singer in the mosaic and he is known throughout europe because of eurovision; milla jovovich is less. Also marina abramović is already on serbian-american article... if your really looking to put a female, then put desanka maksimović she would deserve to be in mosaic the most, thus she is "trully serbian". (Правичност (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC))

Serbs - slaves ?

Hello, let`s just stop for a minute, discuss this change before making it worse. I reverted this edit because it is controversial and if it should be reinserted it should be discussed first. Let`s keep the stable version until this is discussed.

User:Rokonja, as you probably know the translation "slaves" came from the word "Sclavs" or English "Slavs". I have never seen a distinctive referral that this translation is valid for Serbs only. When you translate "Serbs" it doesn`t translate to anything really. Adrian (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Any comments about the ethnonyms of the Serbs should be done at Names of the Serbs and Serbia.--Zoupan 16:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Well this problem occurred on this article so we can discuss it here. But I agree that if this data should be present, it should be inserted on that article. But I am still confused because this term was never used to the Serbs. Adrian (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I have added Constantine VII's claims of the Serb name at Names of the Serbs and Serbia.--Zoupan 17:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I just added what Constantine VII. said about the Serb because there are mentions of Constantine VII. in this article already.User:Iadrian yu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokonja (talk • contribs) 18:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The ethnonym section goes to great lengths to inform on the etymology of the Serb ethnonym, but avoids discussing the origins of the ethnonym itself which is most likely Sarmatian-Iranian (as with the Croats). Appears as cherry-picking. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Under Construction

I'm going to be rewriting this article over the next week. If anyone would like to discuss any changes, or would like to put forward ideas then feel free to discuss. :) 23 editor (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You can expect my ideas and comments just after you finish with the process. Keep up with good work. Mm.srb (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You could help by removing the build-up of unused sources from the bottom of the article. Thanks in advance! :) 23 editor (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

My advice to You is, as we all see what and how you're editing the article, first work on the article (or sections) by editing it directly on the article's page without saving (preview), or in your sandbox, and then when finished, save the edited work. It is, how to say, more ethical from your side to other editors. Others have to keep track of constant edits, think about whether to respond or not. This is a site of joint work, collaboration. Removing what other wrote, removing certain sections, without discussion, it is not good for both the community and the article itself, since it will be in sketchy and unaccomplished edition for a certain period of time. But, this is just an advice, perhaps mine idea how it should look the work on such important articles (like the history of one nation). There are several ways how to work, and each has its own pluses and minuses. Think that the article looked good enough and only had to be altered through a joint discussion.

As for the current edits, since I'm currently working on the article of the Croats, believe and think there should be a consensus around certain topics on which editors should pay attention. One of them is writer Ivo Andric. Recently it was and still is happening a strange coincidence since this April and May. All of a sudden, Andric was removed from the collage of notable Croats because it is "controversal to put him here" and "why to include [him]... and overlook Penkala [who is not a Croat]". Everything would be fine if he remained only as a Yugoslav writer, but as he was removed there, unnoticed he was included in a collage among notable Serbs and is hightlighted in literature section. Why to be included among Serbs is not controversal, while among Croats it is? This leads me to doubt, a suspicion that there's someone who wants the history of Serbia and Croatia be displayed from a single point of view.--Crovata (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well i think controversial mostly because, even most of the croatian editors and Croats as people themselves (as i personally know) do not take Ivo Andrić as a Croat, because he widely declared he is a Serb and a writer of Serbian language... Also because he was already included in Serbs article (he did declare himself as a Serb and was proud of it).. eventug nobody denies he was born into a bosnian croat family as writes in his biography. Just because he didnt see himself as a Croat... dont you think it would be "unworthy" to list him as one of the most famous Croats? ... But anyways as far as i know your croatian editors reached a concensus on removing him from your collage (if im not wrong). As far as my concern id keep the things just the way they are, i dont see any single-point of view... but i know i wouldnt enlist (for example Svetozar Borojević -"Von Bojna" under most notable Serbs eventough he made great army achievements in WW1 for Austro-Hungarian army - simply because he was more proud of being from Croatia and even delcared as one if im not wrong... and thus "fighting for the other side" (the axis) ... well cheers. (Правичност (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC))

USA

In any source says it has 850,000 Serbs? I do not see a clear and reliable source. This is POV--Sokac121 (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There are 2 sources for a higher figure estimation ... one numbers 350-500,000 people of Serbian origin in Chichago and illinios area alone... the other source is for whole Serbian ancestral population in the Usa... the estimates go "between 700.000 and 1 million Serbs and Montenegrins in Usa", sinc eMontenegrins are a much smaller group, but still.. i didnt want to put the largest estimate from that source. So i chose a middle number. a middle number between 700k and 1 mil. is 850.000. Go through dozens of other sources on internet, you will find these estimations even higher ... stating always around, up to 1 million or more than 1 million people of serbian origin in usa... including a fact that a vast majority of people who declare as Yugoslavs are Serbs by origin, and alot of those who assimilated - simply everything that is written in that source... the numbers of estimations can add up. There are several other ethnic group articles like "English people" like "Greeks" or "Bosniaks" or "Bulgarians" or several other articles... that use higher estimations for certain countries like USA. So why wouldnt Serbs article use a higher estimation? ... The sources are from U.S. Embassy and Serbian consule in Chichago.. I think its a good edit and if these sources are POV ... then all sources all over the internet, dozens of them, serbian or american or someone elses that estimate a ca. 1mil. number... are Pov by you. (Правичност (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC))

Sokac, you must use talk instead of edit warring. Again, use RS/N for this question, as all other editors dont agree that source is disputed. Your way of current editing can be sanctioned. Use talk, now. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks WhiteWriter what warning me. Again you show that you're not neutral. Procedures Правичност are you ok. We already a lot about increasing the number of Serbs have said on many pages--Sokac121 (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Umm, what? Sorry, but i didnt actually understand you. If your english is not quite ok, you may write in your own native language, if you aks me, and i will translate here... Did you understand what i said above? All is ok, but you should ask on RS/N about your source doubt, as that would be ok. Do you know how to do it? It is not problematic... --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Just felt like pointing this out here. Tim Judah says there are more than 1.8 million Serbs in the US in his book Kosovo: What Everyone Needs to Know (page 16). 23 editor (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Правичност found the source and about 3,000,000 Serbs in Turkey

[9]. We also need to put in the infobox and write that Serbs are Muslim religion, 70% Orthodox, 30% Muslim --Sokac121 (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh did i now? Your false accusements continue against me and so do your nationalist provocations. Again... that source was on even be4 i got to wikipedia, but nvm that... 23 editor, it would be a good idea to put that source in.. or as for that.. we can put a source of up to 1 million people of Serbian origin in the U.S. as a higher estimation i wouldnt have anything against, just make it reliable. Largest Serbian diaspora lives in Usa and Germany, this is why we need a higher estimation for the U.S. where undoubtebly live atleast up to 1 million ppl of Serbian origin. Let me give you an example and comparison with Norwegians.... at the end of 19th century there was about 17,000 Norwegians living in the U.S. and about 20,000 Montenegrin Serbs alone... Today number of people with Norwegian ancestry is ~5 million! How many ppl of Serbian origin then... I find these sources okay and if neccesary you can input even a figure from Tim Judah`s book. (Правичност (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC))

From its first contribution doing nationalist changes. Reduces the number of Bulgarians, Croats, Bosniaks... and increases the number of Serbs. For you, Montenegrins and Yugoslavs are Serbs.--Sokac121 (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You are going far away from this conversation. And You can go lie and cry to admins about what you just made up, but the problem is you wont find any evidence to proove that, because you know your self your inventing lies and false accusements against me since the start. Shame on you. I have had enough of your attacks and lies, I demand Shokac to be SANCTIONED from even participating here as he cant be even taken seriously. What the heck is your problem with me or Serbs anyway, these figures must strike you direct into your nationalist heart or something. I cant believe someone can go so far and make up such stuff anyway. Your always causing problems, edit warring, arguing, making up lies and accusing someone for nothing; none of your words can be taken seriously here anyway. If soemone gives support for an idea of a higher estimation of Serbs in USA then he is not neutral but pro-serbian by you. What kind of a nationalist clown are you playing here anyway; you cant interfiere into something you dont know and keep denieying it just because you hate Serbs and your stomach cant take higher figures of Serbs. Hope you get sanctioned from this. (Правичност (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC))

From the first until the last contribution to the same nationalist behavior. Terribly :(--Sokac121 (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Guys, stop commenting each other, but speak about ccontent and sources! I will aks for protection again if you dont agree on something. Sokac, why you think source is not ok? --WhiteWriter^speaks 09:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with WhiteWriter. I was planning on making meaningful changes on the Language and Religion sections today ahead of a planned GA bid but now I can't because of this silly arguement that you two don't seem to be any closer to resolving. 23 editor (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Guys... read the comments again if neccesary and try to see that i am trying to resolve the issue and make a point... but what kind of reaction do you expect from me, when i get attacked and accused of something not true? Anyways... this doesnt matter...why Shokac is starting all of this... is probably because he is in lack of arguments for this situation and tries to turn attention onto his meaningless nags in this situation, whatever you will ask him, no matter where the source will come from, he will say its "POV Serbian nationalist" source... I see no point in going into further discussions with his arguments anyway... This edit looks good for me... the U.S. embassy represents also a mind of the U.S. government ... and estimate of 350-500,000 Serbian ancestors in Chichago, IL. area alone... is a widely known figure... figures for whole USA then varie... some say 700k - 1 mil. some say 1,8 mil. as 23 editor said per his source... If you dont think these sources are good, we can use another source for a higher estimations for USA (like the Greek and English people articles have for USA for example and many others). Let me remind you that this is probably the 3rd time Shokac is making progresses on this page slow; always because he wants numbers of Serbs to be smaller than those of Croats. .. while not having a clue about what Ministry of Serbian Diasporas view is. This is why i find his arguments meaningless to this edit... unless he really has any sensible arguments towards these sources and edit. (Правичност (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC))

Yes, but you two are arguing over the content of literally 0.1% of the article. It is my opinion that Tim Judah is quite reliable, and I don't see any problem wiith providing a range of 187,000–1,800,000. If someone doesn't like it they can go take it up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard over whether Judah is a reliable source or not. Now please resolve this quickly and reach a compromise. Regards, 23 editor (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

When the book was published 1997. Back then the Montenegro and Kosovo were part of Serbia.--Sokac121 (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

23 editor, you have my support for your recommendation. Do provide Tim Judas source when this page is unlocked please. Concerning me.. there is nothing more to resolve here, we shall put a higher est. of Serbian Americans and period. Either my sources, or yours, or any others (the good ones ofc) - if majority agrees ofcorse. (Правичност (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC))

Forgot your all Eastern Europeans, Europeans, Slavs, counted among in Serbs. Miserably that nationalism still has support.--Sokac121 (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

See?... he makes no sense.. chip chap boys, its time we go on, lets get it working. (Правичност (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC))

First of all, I want to apologize to Правичност for reverting when I should have been taking the issue to Talk page. The edit war and the harsh personal attacks that followed scared me off from taking part in the discussion for a while. Now the climate seems a bit milder, so I'll take the chance. I have never been against citing alternate numbers, as long as they are well sourced, but I had problems with the sources. The Chicago source is good enough, but it is useless for the claim given, since it says nothing about the total number of Serbs in USA. The embassy source is not good as a source for the number of Serbs in USA, but I suppose it is good enough as a source for the fact that there are assumptions about numbers up to 1 mill. But the number 850,000 is nowhere mentioned, and the numbers mentioned include Montenegrins. They may be few, but how many? The number 850,000 is, therefore, close to WP:OR. Anyway, the Tim Judah source saying 1,8 mill. seems fine, as long as the number explicitly counts Serbs and not other groups as well. In that case I support giving 1,8 mill as the higher number. Two minor issues: I suggest to keep the exact number from the official statistics (187,739) as the lower number. And the numbers should be explained in a note (similar to the Germany numbers). And then again: Please stop the personal attacks! Regards! T*U (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Judah explicitly mentions 1.8 million Serbs in the US (page 16). And I agree– stop the personal attacks (otherwise sanctions are probably going to start flying around and no one really wants that). 23 editor (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

When are we going to be able to edit this one again? 23 editor (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

We can not residents of the United States, who do not declare themselves Serbs put that the Serbs. This we can cite the article Serbs in America. Who are these people who will be counted in Serbs. Americans, Montenegrins, Yugoslavs or some other, they do not feel that Serbs. Number 187.739 a manifold increase is propaganda.-Sokac121 (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

T*U its allright. And Shokac.. That is your own research and these kind of reaserches dont count for reliable sources ;). (Правичност (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC))

Insanely, today on a Serbian television was Jovan Deretić publicist, said that in Portugal 170,000 Serbs living, the Catalans declare themselves as Serbs, that live in India 100,000,000 million Serbs, Illyrians, Thracians, Dacians are Serbs, Rome they founded, guess who? :) ?!?.... I think he is a very good source for this article, it will easily fit into the source about the Serbs in the U.S.:D--Sokac121 (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Article protected

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Arsten. As i already said, i will ask for protection again if we dont solve thin in 3 days... --WhiteWriter^speaks 23:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for that messy edit. I am not used to our new editing system, so... Page should definetly be protected for some time. Mm.srb (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. The debate is over... problem solved concerning majority of editors that participated... i think it would be a good time to release the protection from the article now. Greetings. (Правичност (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC))

Problem was not resolved. Yugoslavs and Montenegrins, are counted as Serbs. Surely you will not mention in this article. Obsolete data. Let the articles remain protected. --Sokac121 (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Who are you to say who is a Serb and who isn't? If multiple reliable sources say something you have no right to take an entire article hostage just because of Wikipedia:IDON'TLIKEIT. 23 editor (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, and you deny the existence of Montenegrins as a nation? This is a serious problem. --Sokac121 (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Nobody deny Monenegrins as nation, but the fact is many Montenegrins are Serbs, not all but a lot. Also, not all Šokci are Croats. Also that the Bunjevci are an Croatian ethnic subgroup is absolut not true. This is the serious problem becaus both are not Croatians. I just wanted to say my opinion (I am not allone with this opinion) nothing more--Nado158 (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Or rather, some, not a lot, of these groups do not see themselves as Croats. Especially Bunjevci--Nado158 (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Nado. Thanks for the inuput but this is still a complex issue and bringing up a Croatian ethnic dilemma may be a bit uncomfortable for our friend Sokac. :) You have a good point about the Bunjevci, Šokci, Slavonians, etc. In all honesty, though, it's essentially the same strategy that our friend here is using: saying something opinated without backing it up with sources and holding this entire article hostage because of his chauvinistic views regarding this particular ethnic group (Serbs). I have told Sokac numerous times to bring reliable sources backing up his claims, and every time he has failed to do so. As far as I can tell from between his arguement with another editor, he wants us to disgard reliable sources and instead insert far lower population figures of Serbs living in the US and other countries. This is bizarre to say the least, as dozens of sources point to more than a million Serbs in the US. Of course not all of them identify as Serbs in the US Census, but then again the US is known as a melting pot, isn't it? 23 editor (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Bunjevci and Šokci are not counted in the Croats see: Croats of Serbia, Croats of Vojvodina, Croats. Little you make a mistake. View revision history before they accuse that reduces the number of Serbs in other countries 23 editor. Montenegrins have their own state, Bunjevci do not have. Denying Montenegrins is a serious problem, reminds me of a period of 20 years ago. --Sokac121 (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Like any other nationalist, you're confusing statehood and nationality with ethnicity. Again, bring sources for what you're trying to say (whatever might that be?) or you won't be taken seriously by anyone participating in this discussion, including myself. 23 editor (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Something not clear to me, you say "I have told Sokac numerous times to bring reliable sources backing up his claims, and every time he has failed to do so" discussed just me and Правичност, WhiteWriter, Peacemaker67, Adrian You worked on the article, but you did not write the number of Serbs, does that mean that you are the owner of another account? little confusing sentence :D--Sokac121 (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The only real serious problem here is you Šokac, you are outnumbered on this debate 5 or 6 to 1 regarding your "concerns", shovinist and hipocrat actions on this article... First you argued with whole team of editors about the total population of Serbs worldwide, then you argued over Germany and now this... Your actions didnt have any sense at all up to this day on this article; Serbs count 1x more than Croats and sorry buddy but your gonna have to calm down with that fact... its a population fact which is not only demographic but also historical. Also hipocratic accusements against me for an argument of yours is not a good option on this debate. I never even edited Bosniaks article, i even highered up some numbers of Bulgarians in the past while i didnt do much about Croats article... and you want to accuse me to other editors that i am a nationalist who is inflating number of Serbs and degrading number of the same i mentione dup above and all other south Slavs as well... thats pathetic.. i apologize for bringing this up again, but i just wanted to mention this fact, to show that its just as pathetic as his other claims and anti-Serb battles here. Montenegro is a state which was a Serbian nation state for hundreds of years in the past all the way up until communism system came and "Montenegrin" became also a national affilation; but when communism system broke down and Yugoslavia fell apart, Serbdom has awakened again and more than 60% of population declared Serbian as mother language compared to 25% Montenegrin in that country... today its still a majority - for about 42% .. while nearly 30% of Montenegro population declare as Serbs... while most of Montenegrin diaspora are actually Serbs, because they declare themselves like that and their concerns about modern day MNE government has been prooven many times (like the example when montenegrin community of USA posted a protest letter to Montenegro government that they shouldt remove Serbian tricolor from the flag and remove Serbian language; naming that Montenegrins are just a regional affilation and not a national one". Yugoslavs are also not an ethnic group, its just a matter of how people are "Yugo-nostalgic" and want to keep that name alive, or either way they forgotten their certain roots and just remember they come from an ex-land called Yugoslavia and if about 75% of these were Serbs in SFRY, then you can realise that a very similar situation is in the diaspora... so either you already know this or dont want to know which wouldnt surprise me, but neither way, your personal thoughts and anti-serb commplexes can beat several and i repeat several sources which mention around 1 million people of Serbian ancestry in USA. And i think its time we end discussion with Shokac and shouldnt go into any more further discussions or argues, because we made a POINT and if 6 persons trying to explain something to 1 person (who happens to be a croatian nationalist battleing his way to shrink serb population on wikipedia) is not enough, then thats an even better reason to end discussion and release protection, so respected fellow editors and i can continue on working on this article and making it better. Greetings (Правичност (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC))

• Serbs of Montenegro increase
• Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina increase
• Serbs of USA increase
• Australian increase
• Serbs in Austria increase

• South Slavs Increasing the number of Serbs, reducing the number of Croats, Slovenes, Montenegrins
• Slavs Increasing the number of Serbs, reducing the number of Bulgarians, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians, Montenegrins
• Slovenes, Reducing the number of Slovenes
• Croats, Reducing the number of Croats
• Croatian_American, Slovene_American- Here is a good source of the U.S. Bureau of Statistics:)
• Bulgarians, Reducing the number of Bulgarians

This is only part of the contribution User:Правичност.

Montenegrins are a nation and South Slavic, Yugoslavs are Yugoslavs.

If you think different change the main articles on these nations --Sokac121 (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow your a real nationalist clown obsessed with me; alot of those edits of mine you shown are old, when i first got to wikipedia and knew little about it and was changing numbers of some peoples worldwide only - when i didnt know i needed to input sources etc... , the rest you have posted are even more funny, because i added actual sources of censuses to my changes, while some nations you claim i decreased i actually increased.. and those i have decreased werent sourced or were just bad edits which needed a new and good source... Anyways..alot of these edits of mine you shown actually turned out good and right, they stand up on those articles till today... because they have good sources... also number of Serbs i was increasing turned out right.. it says 10,5 -12 million today doesnt it? :).... So whats your point, your goal anyway? You got some evil plot against editors here and anything Serbian?... I find your posts worthless, If you wanna write anything more, let it be related to this discussion you started, if not, just leave please, this is not a circus and i really got no more will to argue with you and i doubt anybody else does... (And not all Montenegrins are a nation, only half of them are i assume :)) (Правичност (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC))

My response to this was 19:09, 17 July 2013, So much increasing the number of Serbs and the decrease in other South Slavs.

I never even edited Bosniaks article, i even highered up some numbers of Bulgarians in the past while i didnt do much about Croats article... and you want to accuse me to other editors that i am a nationalist who is inflating number of Serbs and degrading number of the same i mentione dup above and all other south Slavs as well.

Your contributions all reveal. And do not know why are you hiding the truth--Sokac121 (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And most of those edits prooved good aynway thats the true reveal, they got good sources :). Its not about decreasing someone or upgrading its about putting reliable sources. And no i havent edited Bosniaks... I raised Bulgarians back to "up to 9 million" when someone decreased them and i putted up a higher estimation of 300.000 for bulgarians in USA recently - as per their source there. I work only according to sources jimmy boy :). But YOU were the one CONSTANTLY trying to deny majorible reliable sources that stated 3-4 million Serbs live in Diaspora throughout the world and tried to deny any reliable source putting out a figure of more than 10 million Serbs on this article... but you soldier failed :) (now heres a little poem for you for goodbye): Considering how ignorant and shovinist you prooved to be, i see nobody else replies to you but silly me... To you this here is my last reply, coz nobody takes you seriously and please dont ask us why, you just ignore other editors asking you to write down something smart, regarding this theme you started and yet you just wanna break here everything apart. You keep nagging and nagging trying to find your arguments in something else, but boy please shut up coz conspiracy and nationalism smells ;). You can spit as much as you like, "Mo`š da mi pljuneš pod prozor", Farewell and let us be kept apart ;). BB! (Правичност (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC))

Why do you need to justify your actions? We know your work on Wikipedia is based only on the increase in the number of Serbs and the reduction of other, denial of the existence of Montenegrins and Yugoslavs are you doing it from the first contribution [10]. It is unfortunate that this nationalist behavior justifies, as if we have forgotten what happened 20 years ago :(--Sokac121 (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Andrić..

You know he's a Croat? Right? Listing him up there is like if Croats listed Tesla. Its true he declared himself a Serb later in his life and that his best work is indeed considered a part of Serbian literature - but that really makes him no less of a Croat. That's like if I wrote a novel in Korean and declared myself a Korean - and got listed in the Koreans infobox. Its just not usually done. I'm assuming there's some kind of criteria here (even though everyone but the mayor of Tokyo seems to have been squeezed-in), but, if any, imo we should try not to have people in there that aren't really Serbs. At least while we purport to subscribe to the whole multiple nations concept (aka the "We Won't Insist You're All Serbs..For Now" Theory :)) -- Director (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It would seem that the person who created the infobox picture has added him. You might want to discuss it with that user. As for the inclusion of his picture in the Literature section, I think it's justified considering his importance in Serbian literature. Nobody's saying that Croats can have him included in that article. Also, who else isn't "really Serb"? 23 editor (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, it depends on the criteria. But, in my opinion, 30 people in the infobox is far too much. Huge nations with very many notable people don't have that many; it kinda looks like chest-pounding, as only some therefrom are really notable on a world scale. Naturally everyone could add hundreds of people, but on Croats I advocate keeping things subdued with 16 people (as per previous consensus). Imo shaving off a few (e.g non-Serbs like Andric) would grant much more effectiveness and dignity to the template: true notables people might recognize like Dušan and Tesla are drowned out by Joksimovic, Divac, Paja Jovanovic (who??), and Croats like Andric. My 2c anyway. -- Director (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It was i that insisted on putting in Andrić, simply because he declared as a Serb and a Serbian writer... but we might change that picture mosaic anyway.... concerning the 30 people list and your personal opinions of "chest pounding" i dont see a reason you should concern yourself with it, every article is unique by itself, in this picture mosaic there are many notable people who are very notable to Serbian people and thos ewhoa re also notable to other internationals... we have had a debate over the picture and which persons to be included and we all agreeed its fine. It really doesnt matter how many persons are included i dont see any rule written about that. (Правичност (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC))

Its an entirely subjective issue dependent on the personal opinion od Wikipedia users. In my personal opinion, the current infobox is an over-the-top dog-pile, and obscures truly notable personages in an avalanche of nobodies, apparently based on who some guy thought is "important to the Serbian people". In point of fact, this project is written for English-speakers, you might consider making the infobox meaningful to them. Andric, not even being an actual Serb, might be a good place to start de-cluttering. -- Director (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

What a bunch of nonsense. Andrić declared himself a Serbs and is, probably, the most important part of Serbian literature. Isn't that reasonable enough to include him in the infobox? Mm.srb (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I can see your point, but as I said, the infobox seems to me ridiculously crowded as it is and narrowing the criteria to actual Serbian people might be beneficial. The point is to have #1 really notable, #2 Serbian people take a more prominent place. Non-Serbs who "declare themselves" to be Serbs.. still aren't really Serbs. On Croats Slavoljub Penkala, for example, isn't included for the same reason. -- Director (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Director look at for example the French people article: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/French_people - You can see a black person in that mozaic, you can also see Zinedine (Yazid) Zidane who is actually an Algerian.. but they are still counted as one of the most prominent French people.. im trying to say, these people were naturalized, just like Ivo Andrić. But im not sure anyway.. the mosaic looks fine its "Tip - top" , MmSrb did a fascinating work and all of these persons actually deserved to be in the mosaic (we cannot for example include Nikola Tesla and ignore Karađorđe or Živojin Mišić) (Правичност (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC))

Правичност is absolutely right. However, what I want to know is why can't Andrić be in both the Croats and Serbs infobox? Using the French people analogy, Zidane can be found both in that infobox and the infobox for Berbers. This is because he identifies himself as both a Frenchman and a Berber, just like Andrić was born a Croat but identified himself as a Serb. 23 editor (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 23 editor, he can be used on both articles, if you Croats would really want to have him too, then just include him too as one of most prominent Croats.. but dont let this case (for example) become same for Nikola Tesla. Because he was born as a Serb, declared as Serb, he lived as a Serb and he died as a Serb. (Правичност (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC))

All sorts of ethnic articles include all sorts of different infobox formats, but I challenge you to find another nation of 8,000,000 with 30 people in the infobox. I say again, the idea is to make the article accessible and interesting to English speakers, the majority of which, as I'm sure you're aware, are not Serbs. I can tell you people are obsessed with Tesla, its a craze of some sort apparently. He is the most well-known Serbian person leaving everyone else far far behind. When I look at this infobox, however, I can hardly find him in the midst of obscure Medieval figures and folk singers - and Croats, apparently.

We're realistically marginal nations down here, we don't have that many truly world-famous personages who contributed significantly to world events. Its really only just Tito and Tesla, when you look at it rigorously - and we should not hide what few notables we have in a pile of obscure mediocrities just so we can pretend to have many famous people, as many as the Germans for example. We're well known for excessive nationalism, however, and people won't speculate for long as to why they see all these obscure people up there only Serbs know and care about, and why there's more of them than in the Japanese article.. -- Director (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

So are you saying we should only have Tesla and a few others in the infobox picture? I agree adding folk singers is a bit much. 23 editor (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Well no, I'm not suggesting we put up just one guy, or even just a couple guys. All I'm saying is thirty is too many. Maybe 12, or 16 people might be more appropriate. On Croats I advocate chopping it down to 12, but really it depends on how many truly notable people we can scrounge-up. And by "truly" I mean "notable on a world scale and at least borderline meaningful to English speakers". -- Director (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with Правичност, 23 editor and Mm.srb about Andric, I also understand Director´s point. I think we have allways the tendency to forget that en.wikipedia is made for English-speaking world, so it doesn´t matter that much how some individuals are important for Serbs, but which individuals are notable worldwide. Reducing their number obviously brings more light to the ones in the infobox, while having a crowded picture along with many relatively uncknown individuals to the English-speaking world doesn´t help really. We need to focus on how it looks to the non-Serbs, and not to care that much about us or anyone from our region. It is not about who is important to "us" (Serbs), but which Serbs are recognised worldwide and in English-speaking world. FkpCascais (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, we can't only have Serbs who are notable to English-speakers. Figures such as Saint Sava (founder of the SPC), Karađorđe (leader of the Serbian Revolution) and Njegoš (national poet of Serbia) should be included no matter what due to their contributions to Serbian history and culture. As mentioned, Tesla is well-known in English speaking countries, as are Milutin Milanković, Emir Kusturica and Novak Djokovic. We need females in the image, so I think the painter and Ana Ivanovic should stay. Just my 2 cents. 23 editor (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Well sure, just as there has to be at least one woman regardless of notability, I would say that one or two historical figures can go in just because they're locally significant. Serbs (unlike Croats) really do have a "foundational" historical figure significant for the wider region as well as for Serbs. For a while a lot of people genuinely considered a Serb to be the Emperor of Rome :). Car Dušan definitely needs to be in there.. in my opinion, I would place Dušan and Karadjordje, and leave it at that. St Sava.. can perhaps be left out on the basis that, unlike the two significant secular leaders, he didn't have any impact on the wider area, i.e non-specifically-Serbian matters. Of course, a pious person might consider the suggestion unthinkable, but that's my honest outsider view. Novak Djokovic certainly warrants keeping as well. -- Director (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay hold on here a bit people. I deffinetly recognize and understand your opinions... but lets still take a look at this whole situation objectivley... First of all, allright i agree, maybe there is too much people that would shadow some other more notable people but still it doesnt matter how big some nations are... what is important is who has more notable people... And i dissagree that english articles are made for only english speakers or other internationals, its made for Serbs also.. most of editors here are serbs that edit the article... Its not about putting people that are only significant and notable worldwide and shadowing some very important people who are verry important to Serbian people.... take a look at few examples here:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Dutch_people (i doubt you can recognize more than 30% of people on this article)

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Han_Chinese (They are the biggest nation in the world... and yet so few pictures... and again not more than30% of people can be recognized) https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Japanese_people 8same situation with japanese ppl - they count alot also), i think Saint Sava, Car Lazar, Car Dušan, Stefan Nemanja must be in the mosaic, Vuk Karadžić, Karađorđe, Miloš Obrenović and Njegoš also must be; King Petar, Živojin mišić, Tesla, Pupin also must be; Milanković, King Aleksandar, Ivo Andrić, N. Petrovićalso should be, as well as Divac, Nole, Kusturica, Abramović Marina and Ivanović Ana shoould be.. thas my opimion. (Правичност (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC))

I don't know about Obrenović. I mean the man betrayed Karađorđe to the Turks (albeit he was one of the leaders of the Serbian Revolution) and many Serbs aren't fond of him, nor his dynasty. 23 editor (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes well... on the other hand, he was a liberator of Serbia, it was him and his uprising that brought the turks down... well idk. (Правичност (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC))

Ugh.. d'you know how many people have kings and rulers they revere? Don't overdo it in that department, as in try and keep it down to 3 or 4 max imo, 5 is already overboard. The thing is, however undeniably important these people were for Serbian history, few meant very much to the world at large. Take me for example, I'm a Croat, I live right next door to Serbia - and I'm a huge history buff, as in I know a lot of history and local history as well. I've read much about Byzantine history in particular, and, while I've certainly heard of Dušan, St Sava, and Karaorđe, I've heard very little of the Obrenović dinasty (I know they were the first modern dinasty & friends with the Austrians but I can't name one king of theirs), and Lazar is very fuzzy. King Peter I know as he was also briefly our monarch, but still his exploits were local in notability; if you mention him then you have to also mention his son and so it goes on until you decide even 30 people in the infobox is insufficient..

As I said on Croats: probably the best way is to first decide upon a fixed (smaller) number, and then vote or otherwise choose who goes in. If you go the other way around you will, as I say, drown true notables in too many people. -- Director (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Well i see you are quite informed of our history and generally history itself. But i must however disagree about your opinion on king peter; because in his time (during ww1) he was a very respected and known figure, he was even portrayed on american TIME magazine in those harsh times as a true liberator, leading his army and people through the snowy mountains of albania towards Corfu; not only that, but he was also officially the last King of Serbia (after that SHS and Yugoslavian Kingdom emerged), his sone King Aleksandar of Yugoslavia was also a wide known figure (not only through his assasination in Marseille)... For Obrenović dynasty you might be right, but still.. the Obrenović dynasty was leading Serbia through a long period of her independence from the turks... there are alot of notables - like King milan who was assasinated by his own officers in the May overthrow ... but most notable would certainly among Miloš Obrenović be Knez Mihajlo (a verry important street "Knez Mihajlova" exists in belgrade named after him) ... From monarchs in this case, i think King petar, King Aleksandar, Car Dušan, Knez Mihajlo or /and Miloš Obrenović should be included (i think atleast one person from obrenović should be included as Karađorđevići and Obrenovići were always 2 famous rival royal families).. and perhaps Stefan Nemanja (toghther with his brother Saint Sava who wasnt a monarch)... that much for monarchs it would be fine i think (in case we would be changing the picture again). (Правичност (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC))

Yes yes, I know the general story. All I'm saying is this: #1 this is imo too many people, and the current infobox buries the few true notables recognizable to an enWiki reader in a pile of locally-known mediocrities. #2 I would recommend solving this by agreeing on a pre-determined number and then choosing those who warrant inclusion (as opposed to the other way around: choosing a number based on how many Super Serbs there are in your opinion :)). In other words - raise the bar. Agree on, say, four great kings and the like, then choose the top four in that category, etc. My 2c -- Director (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Don´t forget that all important people should be mentioned in the article itself, and that the mosaic should contain only a resume of the most notable ones. And I am sorry to say, but en.wikipedia is indeed written for the English-speaking world, and the fact that many non-native English edit it, or read it, doesn´t change that fact. We need to understand that, and not on what Serbs (what? 0,1 % of total readers of en.wiki?), or any particular nation, thinks. One thing is "us" (Serbs) knowing and finding "important" Saint Sava, and another thing, and a reality, is which Serbs are most known in the English-speaking world. For instance, Saint Sava is an absolute unknown person for most non-Serbs, and we need to acknolledge that fact. He may be a major notable person in Serbia and among Serbs, but is he representative of Serbs in the eye of a non-Serb? In my view, from the rulers list, Czar Lazar, Czar Dušan, Karageorge, Njegoš and King Peter should be a start (and perhaps an end of the rulers list). The rest of rulers are hardly well known outside Serbia and they only overshadow these really notable ones. And btw, in other natins mosaics, lets not forget that there are people who may be unknown to the general public, however worldwide famous in one specific area (mathematics, science, etc.) similarly to our Milankovic, who is hardly known to a common bloke either in Japan, Zimbabwe or Colombia, but he is worldwide known among all mathematicians. FkpCascais (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

SuperSerbs hehe :) thats a good one. Anyway Director i find your recommendations quite helpfull and usefull :). But theres for FkpCascais... i disagree on some things you have said, maybe you should check one of my upper comments where i posted 3 links of other national articles and where i presented another point of view. I disagree that Saint Sava must be ignored from this mosaic just because almost nobody has heard of him from the rest of the world... so your opinion is we could include Slobodan Milošević in the mosaic just because he is more known (maybe to british for example)? ... a Saint or a person like Saint Sava who is of great importance to every Serb i consider absolutely neccesary to be included here. Likewise any foreigner that is interested in Serbian culture, nation , people etc... has most probably heard of Saint Sava :) ... and if any of foreigners come to visit Serbia and probably Saint Savas cathedral, they hear of Saint sava and his importance :) .. and when they learn of him they also know that he is verry valued among Serbs.. looking into your opinion... i think you would only include persons who became famous through western world eyes and by the help of "western promotion of these persons" ... you dont seem to value "Serbian promotion" of famous Serbs" .. how is somebody who we value to become famous, if we dont make him famous ? :). I think we should rather look into history of these persons, what they achieved in their lives for a greater good to then choose right ones. (Btw Jimmy Hendrix didnt become famous because of others, but because Americans made him famous). (Правичност (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC))

I remember that there was a debate some years ago about the inclusion, or not, of Milošević, Mladić and Karadžić for Serbs or Pavelić for Croats, or Hitler, Mussollini, etc. in their correspondent articles, and the decition was made to exclude them (although I don´t support that view, personally I consider it POV to exclude them regardlessly of everything).

Regarding the rest Правичност, I agree in everything you say regarding St. Sava about his mportance to us Serbs. However, I don´t agree in your view that we are here in order to "educate" anyone, specially not in basic stuff such as a simple mosaic which only serves for basically people around the world instantly recognising as much as possible notable Serbs. We can writte all the importance of St. Sava in the text, however us imposing him to everyone is hardly usefull. On the other side, there isn´t even a perspective that he would become more known worldwide in the future, as religion and religious people are less and less imprtant in English-speaking societies. Btw, I checked the links and I read this entire discussion (I followed it from the begining) and I am not sure what is the exact point? Btw, what do you mean Americans made Jimmy famous? Jimmy got famous because he was a brilliant musician... he didn´t needed anyone later after his life promoting him, he promoted himself and is world-wide recognised. We can compare him to Kusturica, who also got world-wide recognition because of his talent as a filmmaker, and not because anyone promoted him, or other people who got international recognition because of their work and talent. It is completely opposite situation from the one of St. Sava, who needs a "push" for making him recognised internationally... FkpCascais (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Well actually we are man, wikipedia IS about educating people :)... I personally do see it usefull, considering him one of most important or notable Serbs in a mosaic i find it usefull.. that way more people who come here will read about him probably or look up mor ethings... and i think discussing how important religion is to anyone is out of word; just like mathematicians, film stars are important to someone, theology is important to others... The exact point is... if you look it generally, when you visit those articles and see those people and you arent Dutch or Japanese or idk who... you dont recognize most of those people even if you visit the article on Serbian language... and about Hendrix... yes he was brilliant, but how many were are are brilliant musicians or singers and still made it nowhere globally, just because they arent from an english speaking country of generally from west, or just because they werent lucky to be "promoted" as others did... im saying, Jimmy Hendrix wasnt the only brilliant musician people had to listen to... he became famous because the american media made him famous throughout world... there might have been someone more talented in perhaps Korea for example, but wasnt promoted that much... so a role of promotion played a verry big role- actually the biggest role into making these guys famous and brilliant... now if we (Serbs in thsi case) will only value what is famous or commercialized in western countries for example... then we will forget who we are or which persons were important to us only. i dont need to actually say anything... just look at dozens of other articles for example and you will find many many people in mosaics of other ethnic group articles that you or probably any english speaking person wont recognize at all, but people will recognize them and understand why are they included in that main mosaic after they look up those persons ;). Btw srry for typing mistakes, i typed fast. greetings ((Правичност (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC))

Re Milosevic, Karadic, Mladic.. I myself view them as a "category", and would insert Milosevic as the representative. Pavelic should be up on Croats, but I'm not sure if there'll be consensus for that. And an argument could be made that he's rather obscure in international terms (in stark contrast to Milosevic e.g.). I think I would support the motion, however. After all, Hitler, Stalin and the like are included in their proper articles (though Lenin is missing from Russians, what?). -- Director (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Actually, Hitler is not in the infobox of either Germans or Austrians. As for long-dead Balkan dictators, I don't think they should be included in the infoboxes of Serbs nor Croats. And as for Lenin, I believe he is missing from Russians because he was a Jew. Regards, 23 editor (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

As you can see, Hitler was only recently removed [11] (I'll see why). There's no justification for excluding dictators, long-dead or otherwise, if they're notable. And no (lol), Lenin wasn't Jewish, in fact, he came to the fore in good part specifically because he (unlike Trocki) was not Jewish, as a conscious policy by the party leadership. His wife was, though. -- Director (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Allow me just to leave a remark about my earlier comment so no missunderstanding is left. I am not advocating for the inclusion of Milosevic and the rest I mentioned. I am just saying that I am opposed to what was decided long time ago to exclude such figures because they are seen as "negative". There may be some general worldwide consensus perhaps for some, however we have plenty of cases which one day are seen as positive and in another as negative. Saddam Hussain, Ghaddafi were onde American friends, and then became enemies, and so... So would that mean that such personalities may be placed one day in the mossaic and removed in another? I am advocating for the consistency of real notability (also understood as visibilty) and less on the subjective view of positive/negative image... Only that. FkpCascais (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, yeah. On what grounds then do you oppose introducing Slobo? [12] -- Director (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not neither advocating neither opposing the inclusion/exclusion of anyone in particular, I am just kind of (re)opening the debate of the inclusion criterium in this mossaics, something of the kind of debate "good guys we like vs worldwide well known guys whatever the general opinion about them is". :D FkpCascais (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

A rather nice infobox mosaic indeed, congratulations! I just wondered if the great Nušić wouldn't merit inclusion? Best, Apcbg (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Nušić was from Aromanian origin, maybe the reason is?

A Serb of Aromanian extraction, so what. Did he ever identify himself other than as Serb? Apcbg (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Folks, which realy important and internationally significant names do you have in mind? For example, Ceca is known world wide, but should she realy be included? Just asking. Mm.srb (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

To periphrase the Latin proverb — Ceca volant, Nušić manent :-) Apcbg (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Kosovo: What Everyone Needs to Know

I do not have a book "Kosovo: What Everyone Needs to Know" how much is this a reliable source. Does writes how much the Serbs has in other countries. Interesting we that source. Maybe him we can use to several other the data--Sokac121 (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)