Talk:Serbs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:
Portal:Serbia
 Serbia Portal
Serbs is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.)

Archived discussions (earliest first): /Archive 1 ... /Archive 2 ... /Archive 3 ... /Archive 4 ... /Archive 5 ... /Archive 6


Contents

[edit] Serb lands map

First of all, I do not care is this map included into this article or not. Since it is part of the history of the Serbs, it certainly should be included into the "History of Serbs" article. As for the "Serbs" article, I also do not see a reason why it should not be included here too. Just to be clear about one thing: the map IS historically CORRECT. Arguments presented here against the accuracy this map came from the people who claimed that the Bosnian kingdom existed in the 10th century (For those who do not know much about history of the Balkans, it would be the same if somebody said that Europeans came to America before the Indians). It is just ridiculous. It is obvious that the persons who object to this map are Bosniak nationalists, and that the reason why they want to remove it are their modern political goals for creation of Greater Bosnia (the "smaller" Bosnia in this case would be the part of present day Bosnia-Herzegovina controled by them, while "greater" one would include present day Serb controled parts of the country under Bosniak control too). Thus, the ONLY reason why they object to this map is because they do not like what they see there (no matter if this is historically correct or not). As I said, I do not care if this map is included into article or not:

However, this falsificated historically incorrect map drawn by user:Heretik certainly should not be included into any article:

It is simply historically wrong and made for modern political purposes (In another words, it is nothing but science fiction).

Now, to discuss the first map. It is historically correct, and I do not see reason why it should not be included here, but I also do not insist to include it here, since it is already places into the "History of Serbs" article.

Therefor, I propose a fair voting whether to include this map into Serbs article or not:

PANONIAN (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting for inclusion of this map into article

  1. PANONIAN (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Nikola 07:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kaster 17:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC) This map is historicaly correct and there is no objective reason for not showing!
  4. Djordje D. Bozovic 18:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC) Bosnia with Raska was a part of Serbia until the 11th century, and later both Bosnia and Raska became autonomous countries.
  5. Branislav Jovanovic 22:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC). If it's historicaly correct, what is the problem?
  6. Filip (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC) Really no comment
  7. --Jovanvb 18:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. — SasaStefanovic • 20:49 16-01-2006
  9. -- Obradović Goran (talk 14:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. User:HolyRomanEmperor Perhaps someone could give a reson for the map's exclusion? --HolyRomanEmperor 19:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The only source for that self-made map is the "de administrando imperio". The "de administrando imperio" itself, is a controversial piece of work. Read something about it and you will understand! PEACE

[edit] Voting for exclusion of this map from the article

1. Heretik - 12.01.06

- because you are mixing the terms region, state, kingdom and territorial ambitions of Serbia. That map shows Bosnia as "exclusively Serb Land". That´s not correct! The only source you name is Administrando Imperio. But it talks about only 2 serb villages in Bosnia. On the other hand the "territorial unit" you are describing has no historical continuity. Pop Dukljanin describes Croatia, Raska and Bosnia as states with totally equal rights! Bosnia + Raska is not Serbia! --Heretik 19:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: I mixing these terms? Or you want to say that you mixing these terms? Did I claimed that Bosnia existed before the Serbia or you? And please tell me where in this map is written that Bosnia was "exclusively Serb Land". I do not see such sentence there. And what "historical continuity" (?!) have to do with anything here? As for pop Dukljanin, he is not considered as reliable source by the historians. PANONIAN (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Tam Singa 17:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This user has no edits other than this vote. Nikola 09:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Exclude it! Damir Mišić

4.Didier13 14:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This user has 2 edits other than this vote. Duja 15:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

5. --Emir Arven 14:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

6. --Asim Led 19:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

7. --Dado 17:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

8. --demicx 20:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

9. --HarisM 17:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

10. --Mezzo Nero 17:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

11. --Radjan Makuk 00:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I don't see what you want to attain with this voting. I'll formally abstain because I regard Wikipedia voting process flawed in many regards, and this particular instance won't solve anything. Obviously, (pro-)Serb editors will want it in, and non-Serb editors will want it out. If the proclaimed goal is to reach a WP:CON, it is doomed to fail. Duja 15:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough history to judge accuracy of the image, but De Administrando Imperio is marked as controversial and even self-contradicting source. If that's correct, its accuracy can be reasonably questioned, especially if it's presented as a reasonably scientifically proven fact (as it should be in one of "main" articles). In my opinion, it's OK to move it to DIA article, especially if it can illustrate the contradicting points it makes (or PoVs taken thereafter). Duja 15:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closing

The vote lasted for 11 days, and no one voted for five days now. The result is 10-7 for inclusion of the map, and in addition the users who voted for inclusion gave arguments for their decision, while the users who opposed it did not. So, obviously, the map should stay. Nikola 04:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serbs of Croatia

...is a new article that needs heavy expansion. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to mention Greater Serbia. But don't worry, someone will. Nikola 07:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
What is that supposed to mean? --HolyRomanEmperor 21:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The source of the problem

I just noticed what is the source of the problem with the "Serb lands" map. The source of this problem is that Nikola want to post this map into article about Bosnia and Herzegovina, as the one can see here:

I now understand why all Bosniak users came here to vote against this map and I also now understand some of the points they made. I 100% agree that this map should not be posted into "History of Bosnia and Herzegovina" article. Map is historically correct, but it is historical map of Serbia, not of Bosnia, thus it does not belong into "History of Bosnia and Herzegovina" article. I personally asked Nikola not to post again this map into that article, but if he still want to post it there, I will personally remove it from there if I saw it there again. PANONIAN (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Nikola Smolenski keeps destroying Bosnian related articles, so dont be surprised that people are interested in his contribution. In my opinion all articles that were written by Nikola Smolenski should be reviewed, because his goal is not to write good and truthful articles but to write his political ideas, mythology and propaganda. --Emir Arven 10:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't have your opinion. The only thing that looks like it is your ideology. Nikola 10:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
You should write an article about it. You are the expert in making things up. Remember Serbophobia?--Emir Arven 13:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Emir, you and your friends also keeps destroying Republika Srpska related articles, so why you complain? It is ridiculous that Bosniaks write articles about Republika Srpska (a clear POV intentions) as well as it is ridiculous that map of Serbia is posted into the article about history of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The medal have two sides, remember. PANONIAN (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Panonian, as I know that your comment above inherently refers to me, let me remind you that I am still technically a citizen of Republika Srpska unlike you and Nikola and Republika Srpska is still part of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Perhaps you don't want us to help you out with topics that you are more closely related to but you should know that BiH is a domain that we are very knowlegdable about.--Dado 18:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • That is irrelevant. You only represent the MINORITY of the RS population and your editing in those articles is HIGHLY INSULTING for majority (90%) of the population of the Republika Srpska. It is simply against the policy of Wikipedia that geographical article about one territory is insulting for the people who are majority in that territory. PANONIAN (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Please?! You are talking about editing?! You are the one who made up an article called: Unitary Islamic Bosnia. When we write we provide sources, international documents, references, judgements, not mythology. And you are surprised when people want to check writings done by Serb nationalists that are ready to make smth up just because of their political goals, who deny crimes, ethnic cleansing, Bosnian language, Bosniaks etc. For instance, when you made up "Unitary Islamic Bosnia", you just made a demage to Serbs that already have a bad image. As this term doesnt exist, then there must be an explination who created it. And Serb war criminals (more then 100 in ICTY, more then 1000 with the ICTY mark "A" in B&H, and more then 20.000 that participated in Srebrenica genocide) article would be a logical extention of the so called Unitary Islamic Bosnia article, because they are the one that used the same logic, the same propaganda not just against Bosniaks, but against Croats, Albanians, Vatican, Germany, USA, France etc. --Emir Arven 17:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I provided sources for the Unitary Islamic Bosnia on the talk page of that article. You may notice that people decided to keep this article. I changed its name into "Bosniak nationalism" to give an wider aspect to it, to include not only "Unitary Islamic Bosnia", but also "Greater Bosnia" idea. Both ideas are product of the Bosniak nationalism, thus the current title is better. And where and when I denied any crimes and ethnic cleansing? It is you and your friends who deny that Bosniak side commited war crimes and ethnic cleansing against Serbs during the Bosnian war. You are the one who deny that Bosniak nationalism exist. PANONIAN (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You provided nothing. You said it was a crap. The majority voted to delete your crap. On the other hand mostly Serb hard-core nationalists voted for the crap, because it is not strange for you and other nationalists to make things up. And that is the reason why we dont believe you and other nationalists who make things up. --Emir Arven 16:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I did said that it is a crap, but I also said that it is CORRECT. It is same crap as Greater Serbia article. If that crap exist, this one should too. No double standards! And you should have proof when call somebody a nationalist. Unlike you, I accepted many compromise solutions in various Wikipedia articles, together with the people with whom I had disagreement, while you and your friends have ONLY ONE goal here on Wikipedia: to spread political propaganda for Unitary Bosnia and to fight against every opposite opinion. I just do not understand how any compromise could be reached with that kind of people. PANONIAN (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I dont understand mythology, but I have seen what you are capable of. That is quite enough for understanding your motive. Serbophobia? Oh yeah, craze enough! Unitary Islamic Bosnia, craze enough with zero google results, after that changed to Bosniak nationalism etc. What is next? Serb Heavenly People, Serbofood, Serboair. Did you know that Serb policy/army during war in ex-Yugoslavia decided to change names of the towns that they occupied to Serbonames. For instance Donji Vakuf was changed to Serbobran, Foča to Serbinje. Even a village called Zijemlje with just 150 inhabitants was changed to Serb Mostar. Was that craze? Of cource. That was proven by International Courte. Is this craze what you and your friends do? Of course, and to use your word it's the same crap.--Emir Arven 18:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You obviously just had one attack of Serbophobia. Your leaders, your government and your army were no better than the Serb ones. Clean your own yard first. PANONIAN (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely support ICTY. Unfortunately most Serbs dont. But the truth is better then mythology. Their job is to find what is the truth and to convict war criminals. That is not my job.--Emir Arven 08:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was not to move this page --Lox (t,c) 16:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Serbs → Serbian people : To follow pattern used for many other articles on peoples.

[edit] Voting

Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote using "~~~~"
  • Oppose, "Serbian people" could also to mean "People of Serbia", which are not all Serbs, but also Hungarians, Bosniaks, Albanians, etc. Just read the Serbian people page to see details about that. "Serbian people" is an disambiguation page. PANONIAN (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose—the title already follows the pattern of most articles on peoples. —Michael Z. 2006-01-18 23:43 Z
  • Oppose. I like this version of the title better. Nikola 08:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Philip Baird Shearer 01:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

This move appears to be part of one users crusade to change the titles of all articles on peoples. The stated reason is misleading, the move is arbitrary, and a bad idea:

  1. The plural noun version Serbs is simpler.
  2. A look at Category:Ethnic groups in Europe shows that the simpler form is most common
  3. The more complex form "Serbian people" will lead to confusion with broader articles, like "Baltic peoples".

—Michael Z. 2006-01-18 23:47 Z

If there is no standard in naming peoples, I agree that this version of the title should stay. Nikola 08:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Nikola you cannot be serious, your "voting" is not according to wikipedia guidelines and it was not even known among most wikipedians. Damir Mišić 13:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] The etnic map...

..of Bosnia and Herzegovina presented on this article is incorrect. Please see Demographics of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Most Serbs that lived near the Una river have either left or were ethnicly cleansed. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean those Serbs in Federation? Actually, they returned there, and they are again majority in these municipalities. I read about that in the newspapers, so the map is correct. PANONIAN (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

What about the mixed Croat-Bosniak (yellow) Cantons? And if you think that that is truthful, you should check with User:Dado. He has removed the map from the Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina article. I though that he was right. Could you put some specified sources so that we can source the image? --HolyRomanEmperor 12:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what is a source for that map. I have it in my computer, but I do not know where I found it. Of course, until the new census in BIH, every modern BIH ethnic map is not 100% accurate. PANONIAN (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bosnian Serbs

When I created Serbs of Croatia I atrackted some contributors.

I am doing it again: Bosnian Serbs. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are Montenegrins included?

Only the Serbian people who live in Montenegro should be included as Montenegrins. Also, according to [1] the source listed for Austira, the number is aroudn 133,000.

I believe that Montenegrins who live in Albania in quite harsh conditions do consider themselves Serbs. Ideally, each reference should be checked by someone who has the time and it could be written what kind of population is referenced (people who self-declared, people who speak Serbian, people who come from SCG etc). By the way, while figures of people who come from SCG do include non-Serbs, the figures of people from other countries (B&H etc.) do include Serbs, so I think we can use SCG as a reasonable approximation. Nikola 11:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
That's true, but many nations abroad have much smaller B&H numbers, and some don't even have a significant B&H population, so they don't always cancel out exactly, though sometimes they might. I think the only nations where this is a problem are Germany, France, and UK (and maybe in a lesser way, Austria). Otherwise, like you said, it seems to work out.

[edit] Statistics

Please refrain from decreasing or increasing the numbers at will, and if you must leave the total intact, just change for a specific country total.

As far as countries are concerned, please do not forget the fact that Serbs living abroad are not only identified by Serbia-Montenegro, many are identified as citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina (which has 40% Serbs) or Croatia (which had 15% before the war and ethnic cleansing which in fact enlarged the Serbian diaspora). So it is stupid to decrease the number of Serbs in Austria to 133,000 when the given source: [2] clearly states on page 74 that 177,320 are identified as Serb-speakers subdivided into 135,000 foreigners (auslander) and 41,000 as citizens of Austria. Same thing goes for the number of Serbs in Germany, 150,000 can by no means be the minimum of Serbs in Germany as that is just the number of citizens of Serbia-MOntenegro in that country, many more are refugees from Bosnia and Krajina (Croatia) and some also have German citizenship so if I originally wrote 177,000 in Austria it was not because I liked the number but because an official number suggests that many, same goes for Germany and Switzerland. [User:Savindan] 18 February 2006

[edit] Number of Serbs

The number of 9 million Serbs is a great underestimate, comparing to the number of the followers of the Serbian Orthodox Church- 15 million ( thus counting the Macedonian Orthodox Church which has 1,3 million faithfulls and Montenegrin Orthodox Church with some 350,000).

- EG. if someone married a Serb man and they are a English woman..the woman becomes a follower of Serb faith as they got married in Serb Church (Church counts them all)...so if you have 9 million real Serbs you would have double that following the faith. Mixed marriges is part of the reason, although in all honesty most Serbs tend to marry other Serbs. Mixing is failry low. I think the Serb figures are over inflated in all areas, very patriotic by the Serb editor to create a bigger diaspora. Not that many Serbs in the world compared to Croats and Macedonians, at least in the west. People should't inflate figures. We can see in general society that not many Serbs are around, so saying 500,000 in USA is foolish. Evergreen Montenegro1 03:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


There is no such thing as a 'Montenegrin Orthodox Church' nor does it count 350 thousand of anything, candles or cubic centimeters... —This unsigned comment was added by 67.71.15.52 (talk • contribs) 12 March 2006.

Number of Serbs in Serbia only is 6,5 million. In Bosnia, according to the last census it's 1,5 million. In Croatia there's 220,000 Serbs currently (600,000 before the war), in Montenegro 200,000, in Kosovo 130,000 (340,000 before the war), in Macedonia 45,000 and in Slovenia 40,000, which puts the figure of Serbs in former Yugoslavia today up to about 8,7 million (about 700,000 additional people from Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo have imigrated, which means about 9,5 million people in SFRY were Serbs)! That's ONLY for the former Yugoslav area. You can check these informations anywhere, like in censuses of SFRY which clearly states these numbers unlike f.e. Albanian numbers that are not based on any kind of evidential support. Serbs in Austria are some 300,000 strong (177,000 registered, 44,000 naturalised citizens, 80,000 "gastarbeiters"); in Germany the figure ranges between 700,000 (lower estimate!) to about 1 million. Only in Frenkfurt area there are some 100,000 Serbs. Serbs in Romania and Albania are about 45,000 each, same for South Africa, Italy, Norway and Sweden. There are about 60,000 Serbs in GB, some 80,000 in France, some 170,000 in Switzerland and less than 100,000 in the rest of Europe. USA counts some 375,000 Serbs (lower estimates!), probably the figure raises up to 600,000, mostly in Chicago, Pitsburg, Long Beach etc. In South America there are some 200,000 people of Serbian descent, in Canada about 200,000 as well, in Australia some 120,000. People of Serb/ian descent number no less than 12 million people worldwide, which is somewhat parralel to the adherents of Serbian Orthodox Church (w/o the Republic of Macedonia and 300,000 Montenegrins worldwide). I suggest you compare these numbers with the official censuses and infos and change it to at least 10-11 million which would also be an underestimate, but not as big. You shouldn't forget that the Serbs are the 4th largest Slavic group after Russians, Ukrainians and Poles, slighly larger than Czechs and Belarussians. p.s.The reason the numbers in some of those sources you-ve listed are sometimes not as big is because many people in those individual countries tend to declare themselves Yugoslavs rather than Serbs, in the censuses before 2003, when Yugoslavia was dismanntled. For example, number of Serbs in USA accoring to your sources is 174,562, and the other category, Yugoslavs, counts 421,239!!!!! So Serbs are split in most of the censuses that took place before 2003,but in the next censuses these figures will raise to the numbers that I've mentioned- about 600,000 Serbs live in USA and that's final. There are still more than 2 million Yugoslavs registered worldwide even though Yugoslavia ceased to exist in 2003, so the censuses that are about to come will be much different concerning Serbian population everywhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NeroN BG (talk • contribs) 23 Feb 2006.

Most Serb cencus would include Montenegrins. Most people who fall under Yugoslav are in fact Croat (mostly from Dalmatia) not Serb.

That was maybe true for Dalmatia in 1991 census, but most of those who declare themselves as Yugoslavs in Serbia are Serbs (If most of the Yugoslavs declare that their religion is Orthodox Christianity, then I do not see how they can be Croats). PANONIAN (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Serbs mostly migrated FROM Bosnia, not TO Bosnia. Before 1971, Serbs were largest ethnic group in Bosnia and today are second largest because they migrated from there to Serbia and to the west. Same thing is with Montenegro because it is area from where people migrate to other areas. The increase in the number of Serbs in Montenegro is because many Montenegrins declared themselves as Serbs in the last census, but there were no migrations of Serbs to Montenegro. Serbs only migrate from Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro and Kosovo to Central Serbia and Vojvodina, but not from last two areas to first four. PANONIAN (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not know much about numbers of Serbs and Croats in the western countries. My knowledge is mostly about demographics of former Yugoslavia and some neighbouring countries. I also was not interested much about ethnic origin of certain historical figures, so ask somebody else for help about this question. PANONIAN (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


All right, just please do not change colour in my signature any more, ok? I like purple and red colours at this moment, and if you like some other colours, you have your own signature for that. :) PANONIAN (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Some posts deleted. I think someone has gone in and inflated the Serb population in the west. That is wrong. Evergreen Montenegro1 04:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of countries with insignificant serb population from ethnic group table

Come on people. Whats next ? Are we going to list diplomats ?

I propose we remove the following countries

  1. New Zealand - 753 serbs
  2. Luxembourg - 4000 serbs
  3. Botswana - 1000 serbs
  4. Zimbabwe - 800 serbs
  5. Russia - 4156 serbs
  6. Brazil - 2000 serbs
  7. Chile - 2000 serbs
  8. Czech rep - 1801 serbs
  9. Slovakia - 434 serbs

That was done, and then reverted. These numbers have no sources anyway - they are guesses. 72.144.125.215 03:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Montenegrins, again

I don't like Estavisti's explanation of Montenegrin issue:

The term "Montenegrins" (Crnogorci) can either be used to refer to Montenegrins as a Serbian subgroup, or to an entirely separate Montenegrin nation - as well as to any inhabitant of Montengro (Montenegrin Serb, Montenegrin, Bosniak, Muslim, Albanian, etc).

I find it confusing; it can be parsed that there are Montenegrins who are Serbian subgroup, as well as Montenegrins who are separate nation. In fact, the only thing in which they differ is their own feeling about it. There are many families where some members declare as Montenegrins and others as Serbs. I'm reverting my version, which IMO better depicts the situation. (As for the 3rd meaning – inhabitant of Montenegro – it's already covered by explanation below). Duja 14:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serbs in USA

Here's the official info from the US Census Bureau, year 2002: [3]

  1. Estimates for the Serbian-American community are: 156,986;
  2. estimates for the Yugoslav-American community are: 386,582

Back in 2002 there was still such thing as Yugoslavia; on the next Census most of these pro-Yugoslav determinees will opt for Serb origin.

Tesla was indeed a Serb, if you claim the opposite you're beeing redicilous. His father was a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church for God sakes. Ivo Andric has declared himself to be both Croat and Serb on 2 separate occasions. He was a Croat-born but has switched to Serbian nationality and even wrote in Serbian Ekavica rather than Ijekavica. Both nations have equal claims to this author. He should not be in the famous Serbs picture!!

Rudjer Boskovic was a Slovin, neither Croat nor Serb, or both, however you please. That was an overwhelming ethnic sentimate in Ragusa at that time, due to its connections to the East (especially medieval Serbian Kingdom and Empire), Bosnia and Catholic religion and western-like political status and culture. Anyways, his father was from Orahov Dol in Trebinje, Bosnia (Republic of Srpska) and was of Serbian origin, which has ignited Rudjer to deepen his knowledge about SOC while travelling in Raska and visiting its monasteries. He was a Jesuit and his nationality is a contraversial question although he sure didn't consider himself to be a Croat, nor a Serb for that matter, even though he had reasons to opt for any of the two (ethnic Serb but Catholic Jesuit). And as for the comment about Croats... Serbs and Croats in America are mostly apart from each other even though they came in the same wave and more or less have inhabited the same states. So it's only normal that in one place you find many Croats and almost no Serbs and vice versa, so I don't really consider that to be a stong, if at all, argument. User:NeroN_BG

Whoever you are...(?!?!)

I couldn't care less about Croats nor I'm interested in their diaspora figures. I'm dealing with my own nation's pop estimates, not on promoting other nation's underestimates as many other do.

But if you insist, according to the US Census Bureau, there are some 400,000 Croats in the States [4]. These figures could rise because there are many unregistered Croats in the US, same for the Serbs. I believe the Census figures unlike many others. Census shows almost identical number of Yugoslavs in the States- 390,000 (Serbs, Montenegrins and very few others) and 160,000 "domesticated" Serbs.

I have lived in Chicago and Milwaukee for years and I'm very aware that Serbs consist a huge amount of population in some areas, especially in the suburbs of the city, centered around the St Sava church and in its "relative proximity" (it's a city that's larger than Serbia so by that I mean within the city limits). It is an enormous city of about 9 million people out of which some 300,000 are of Serbian blood/ancestry. These data have been collected by the Serbian Unity Congress and are tied only to the Chicago metro area. Combined number of Serbs in the States is at least 600,000, as I've said, today the majority of them declare as Yugoslavs or have done so in the last Census which is about to change when the next one is undertaken.

"Tesla is Romanian/Vlah but Serb to most of us. I call him Serbian. Andric is Croat and has no Serb blood. So no point calling him Serb"- This comment is just hilarious... Both of these 2 great scientists have declared themselves Serbs on various occasions; Tesla did so on regular basis ("Serb of Croatian homeland"- his dad was a Serb Orthodox priest for God sakes) while Andric tended to be more shy about his origin- he mostly considered himself Yugoslav but was "caught" by both Serbs and Croats to have been declared a member of their respective nations on 2 seperate occasions. He lived in Belgrade most of his life. He could have been both.

About ur signature...If I were as ignorant as u I would have probably done the same thing, would not sign my own post:) User:NeroN_BG

[edit] De Administrando Imperio

What is the reason that the origin of the name from [5]De Administrando Imperio (commonly used title of a scholarly work from ca. 950 by Byzantine emperor Constantine VII) is not included in the list of origins? As far as it seems, athough controversial, it is the only authoritative text of this era. Therefore, it should be included in the list as well, regardles of the fact that it mentions slightly different origin of the name than all other theories.

The reason is that article list only VALID theories about origin of the Serb name. This theory was proved WRONG long time ago. PANONIAN (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the reason why "Some say" and "Some believe" have more merit than De Administrando Imperio. Anyway, could you please provide some links to where one can find scientific proof (or clues, at least) that the book is fraud?
I do not say that book is fraud. What I say is that the theory about Latin origin of the Serb name is proved wrong. The name of the Serbs was first mentioned in the Greek (not Latin) sources in the northern Caucasus (an area where Latin language influence simply did not existed at the time). Check the map based on Greek literary sources where Serbs (Serbi) are located in Sarmatia Asiatica in northern Caucasus (certainly not a Latin name origin): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1729.jpg PANONIAN (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, but does that mean that sources mentioned are from Greek origin? What I would like to point is that there are no scientifically valid origins of the name, but it seems clear that "positive" (or "heroic") origins are more favored than "negative". I see no scientific method there, and it really looks biased.
I read books about the origin of the Serb name and 3 most accepted theories are Slavic, Iranian and Caucasian (none of them proved, but also none of them rejected). On the contrary, the theory about Latin origin was rejected as not likely one. So, the fact that this article claim that "Some say" or "Some believe" is only a technical question, because "some" in this case means "some of the scientists who researched this issue". I can mention some of the names of these scientists like Milan Budimir, Relja Novaković, etc. PANONIAN (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant origins of the name, not origins of the people...
I meant that too. The 3 most accepted theories of the origin of the name of Serbs are Slavic, Iranian and Caucasian. As for origin of the Serb people, it is mixed, mostly Slavic and Illyrian. PANONIAN (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number war

To all reverters:

  1. Can anyone please check the numbers in the references?
  2. I have put a goddam effort in converting the links to references. It was User:NeroN BG who reverted it without edit summary and explanation, which I consider very rude.
  3. I'm gonna revert the article to the referenced version, and will not check the numbers myself once more; let someone else do it now for a change. Whoever wants to change the numbers should do so by editing.

Duja 15:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rudjer Boscovich

Rudjer Boscovich was a Croatian scientist, and had no serbian ancestors, i really don't see why is he included in this article, so please remove him from it. hand of Bjesomar 15:48, 2 August 2006

I removed Boshkovich myself. hand of Bjesomar 8:20 4 August 2006

You must put relevant reference for this claim. --Pockey 14:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caucasian origin? section

This addition added a large unwikified section, uncited except for a reference to "Plinius [I presume Pliny] the Younger", making such bizarre statments as that the word Serb "sounds old" and ending with a paragraph that begins "For more information on the movement of Serbs from the Caucasus to their present location and all around Asia and Europe CLICK HERE…" My inclination would be just to revert it. Certainly if it had been added anonymously I would do so. As it is, I am simply calling attention to it, and hoping the people working on this article can work out if anything in it is worth salvaging. - Jmabel | Talk 00:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Duly removed as WP:OR racial theory. Duja 07:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - Jmabel | Talk 00:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

And, again, I hesitate to edit this because I don't know much about the topic and a lot of people are clearly working on it, but "That's the explanation of Luzic Serbs, who live in Germany and Austria, far away from original Serbs!" does not seem like encyclopedic writing. Since "Luzic Serbs" is completely new to me and unlinked, I hesitate to mess with this, but clearly it needs an edit. - Jmabel | Talk 00:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australia

The German wikipedia notes that there are 690,000 Serbs in Australia. --PaxEquilibrium 21:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Other wikis usually suck as a reference, most notably in this area. Duja 08:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems like a terrible overestimate... --PaxEquilibrium 16:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
However, it is possible that censa in Australia have same problems as those in USA. Nikola 17:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] confused

Can someone explain what visantic means? I can't find it in the dictionary. I think this sentence should be reworded in any case, its from the "Symbols" section:

"The white two-headed eagle, that represents dual power and sovereignty - serbian and visantic, was the coat of arms of the House of Nemanjić."

// Laughing Man 06:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to a Serb's English :-) Vizantija --> Byzantium.--estavisti 07:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Genocide" in lead paragraph

More confusion: "to a lesser extent due to suffering [[Jasenovac_concentration_camp|genocide]]" is cited to (1) the same Wikipedia article as is linked (never a valid citations) and (2) two blind URLs that apparently lead to videos. "Genocide" is a pretty strong term; it usualy calls for a better citation than that. It also seems a very odd inclusion in the lead paragraph of an article about an ethnicity: we don't even mention genocide in the lead paragraph of Jew, Ashkenazi Jews, Armenians, Igbo people, or Herero, so it is pretty hard to believe that it is appropriate here: by all reasonable accounts, all of these peoples lost a far larger proportion of their populations to genocidal actions than did the Serbs. I believe this should be reverted, and if no one can make a strong case for it in the next 24 hours, I will feel free to do so. - Jmabel | Talk 21:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, be more bold, and don't be so sensitive. You don't even have to discuss so extensively whether to clean up obvious strong POVs and fringe theories. You own this article as much as anyone else. Duja► 08:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I tend to go very gently on articles about ethnic groups I don't know all that much about. Saves a lot of fighting and recriminations. I'm quite bold in areas where I know what I'm doing. - Jmabel | Talk 21:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

This article is about the ethnic group who live in many countries. For just the multi-ethnic population of Serbia, see Serbians.

So just Orthodox Serbs can be considered “true ethnic Serbs”? If a Serb abandon Orthodoxy to other religion and became an atheist, he’s not Serb anymore? There’s a justaposition of “ethnicity” and “religion” here.--MaGioZal 08:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Where does it say that? Read the article about Serbians, it will open your eyes...--estavisti 08:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
(?). I don't see a link between the sentence in question and your comment. Yes, here on Balkans (and in many places of the world), ethnic identification (belonging to ethnic group of Serbs) tends to be stronger than national (being a citizen of Serbia). But that still doesn't imply anything about the religion—there are atheist Serbs, protestant Serbs etc. A Magyar from Serbia will not ever call himself a "Hungarian-speaking Serb" (cf. Swedish-speaking Finns as a counterexample), but he certainly would call himself a "citizen of Serbia". Duja► 08:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


Why is Monika Seles not mentioned among Serbs on this page. She was born in our country (her family has been in Serbia for generations) and she won 9 Grend Slams for Yugoslavia! What more do you guys want?

[edit] Montenegrin descent

I heard that around 80% of Serbs have Montenegrin ancestry. Is this true? Emperor of Europe 03:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No, yes and no. No, 80% of Serbs don't have Montenegrin ancestry. However, the territory of today's central Serbia was cleansed by Turks and later repopulated mainly from Montenegro, so majority of Serbs in central Serbia do have Montenegrin ancestry. Though I don't think that it is 80%. Nikola 21:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The majority of the 19th century Serbia were Montenegrins, yes (the populace of Sumadija, Negotinska and Timocka Krajina, Pomoravlje etc. all almost exclusively settled by Montenegrins). (such as the Kostunicas - of whom the current Premier is) --PaxEquilibrium 13:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of Serbs are of Montenegrin Serb descent, it just depends how far back you go.--Еstavisti 13:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

How could we have Montenegrin descent, when Montenegro was entirely Serb since the arrival of slavs until the world war 2...? Montenegrins have SERBIAN origin, and Serbs have origin in the SERB LAND OF MONTENEGRO.
Well, yes.--Еstavisti 22:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] number

As I have explained on my talk page, please do not change the number of Serbs to 9.5 million -- I believe that the Ministry for diaspora Republic of Serbia is a reliable source, and the numbers they supply is 7 million in Serbia and 4 million in diaspora. The current version with the range already reflects concerns (expressed by User:Horvat Den) over the exact number not being known. // Laughing Man 05:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this on both Croats and Serbs (both nationalities that have a tendency to bloat their numbers), this is not a page for any citizen of Serbia -- as everyone knows, over 30% of Serbia isn't Serbian in any way. The ministry for diaspora of the Republic of Serbia is giving an estimate for the number of SERBIAN CITIZENS ABROAD -- which could include anything from Kosovar Albanians to Serbian WORKING abroad. You cannot simply add the population of Serbia and come up with this ridiculous estimate. Lets not limit the upper estimate -- there's no reason to assume ethnic Serbs go above or below 12 million --- we don't know. I'm getting to the point where I'm begging people to see this point of view. There are plenty of nationalists on wikipedia (anons usually) and they constantly bump up their countrymans numbers by a million or two, and most users hardly notice this. Take a look at the craziness at Romanians. Horvat Den 06:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No actually it doesn't. The ministry keeps track of diaspora Serbs primarily, and diaspora Serbs are primarily interested in keeping in touch with Serbia. Number of people who are abroad does include people who are only working abroad, but they aren't registered at censa, so they are not included in the 7 million who live in Serbia. Nikola 22:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
This number isn't from the ministry even, but the citation seems to point to some professor of law making the statement. What makes this person a reliable source as to the total number? Further, it is a general practice on these pages to increment the total whenever a new census figure comes in. Then to round of the total census to give a rough number for the total population. Tiny diasporas in the rest of the world are neglected...not to find any random source we can. For an example to you, a site called the Joshua Project puts the number of Serbs at 9.5 mil. And so it can be easily argued to put in that statistic for the total. Then we have contradictions. Why not just total up the census? Saves so much trouble. Horvat Den 10:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
That "some professor of law" is the Minister of diaspora in the Serbian Government [6]. It is original research if you start compiling different sources and adding up numbers. We are using a reliable source for this data -- a goverment ministry responsible for the diaspora. Also, please give a source to what you have just added to the article, otherwise we need to remove it -- you are stating the numbers includes " Albanian, Hungarian, Roma, and Croats". Thank you. // Laughing Man 17:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
FYI, it is not original research to add up numbers. This was already covered and discussed in TALK:Romanians. Czech, Russians, Ukrainians, Italians, Hungarians, Scottish people, and Poles do it. The source you yourself keep using says very clearly "citizens of Serbia." As if you didn't know already, Serbia is only about 60% Serbian meaning the citizens would include all other inhabitants of Serbia. Please stop adding a source that doesn't even refer to ethnic Serbs, it is becoming slightly annoying. I don't know why so many people have trouble distinguishing nationality from ethnicity. As a nationality "Serbians" are 10 to 12 million, but as an ethnicity, they do not. Horvat Den
Do you have reference that says this? Thank you. // Laughing Man 00:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
"Serbia is only about 60% Serbian..."? What are you talking about? A few lines above (Dec. 2006) you mentioned 30% of Serbia not being Serbian. So the non-Serbian population in Serbia grew about 10% within a month? Throwing numbers around doesn't make them more real. This is just stupid babbling. You talk about sources, well, what about citing some sources yourself?--80.133.202.175 10:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serbs in Germany

I note that the number of Serbs in Germany is currently cited to another Wikipedia article, not much of a citation. - Jmabel | Talk 01:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


40000 Serbs In Albania??? Who came up with this numbers????? 2 or 3 villages are not 40000.

[edit] Copyright

A Geocities site (http://www.geocities.com/protoillyrian/index.html) has copied significant portions of the Serbs article, and possibly others, without complying with the GFDL. If you helped write the version copied, please send a DMCA notice to Yahoo. More information is available at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Pqr#protoillyrian. Please tell me if you have questions. Superm401 - Talk 06:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


USA

this can"t be that so many serbs live in the USA there is the right numer of them

[[7]]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/r/Talk%7ESerbs_19ba.html"