This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ethnic groups B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Serbia B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Eastern Orthodoxy B‑class High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the Eastern Orthodox Church. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You may also want to look at the current collaboration of the month or the project's notice board.Eastern OrthodoxyWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern OrthodoxyTemplate:WikiProject Eastern OrthodoxyEastern Orthodoxy articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Yugoslavia B‑class High‑importance Serbs is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Interestingly, I looked at some sources the number of Serbs. Wrongly interpreted under.

• www.blic.rs/Vesti/Drustvo/266353/Cetiri-miliona-Srba-naslo-uhlebljenje-u-inostranstvu- gives 10.5 million, no word on the 12 million.
• www.serbianunity.com/serbianunitycongress/statistic]-Page does not work, under construction
• [СТАНКО НИШИЋ. Хрватска олуја и српске сеобе. Београд, 2002.] in the book also writes (На пример, проф. др Гречић, који своје податке базира на изворима завичајних удружења Срба у дијаспори, наводи да Срба ван Савезне Републике Југославије и Републике Српске има 1,940.000.) Serbs outside the Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Serbian has 1,940.000.
• www.frontal.rs/index.php?option=btg_novosti&catnovosti=0&idnovost=19032 Source of four sentences! ("Што се тиче дијаспоре, Срба има између два и по до четири милиона, у зависности шта се све узима у дијаспору, а шта у регион",) Serbs have between 2,5 to 4 million, This is some sort of interview ridiculously :).
• ec.europa.eu/languages/euromosaic/hu5_en.htm- (Serbian [Srpski] is a South Slavic language closely related to Croatian. It is spoken worldwide by about 12 million people most of whom (approximately 6.7 million) live in Serbia.) all is clear, the source speaks about language, not of nation.

In the article Slavs five contributors, is also changed number.--Sokac121 (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? There was an already reached concensus over this and we have been through this with you MILLION TIMES! ....

I believe vandalizing the same thing (figures of total population) on "Serbs" article over and over again by this clown is really unecessary to be tolerated. There was peace for few months, but now he is back with same complex. I vote for sanctions and i am serious. (Правичност (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry Правичност you did not say anything about my statements above. Please tell me something about it, we were mistaken in about it sources. No one is was reading what in them actually writes. Thanks--Sokac121 (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whats to say.. for the millionth time...same discussions over and over again.. i can only agree about "serbianunity congress" source .. it may be removed if the "under construction" thing doesnt dissapear, but may be returned back later on when page is renewed. About other sources, there is nothing to discuss more... there are enough sources that mention 12 million. Its just a higher estimation and there are many sources that aproove, that such estimations exist. if the 12 million number bothers you, then just believe deeply inside yourself that the lower estimation is more right (based on Blic source) - no need to vandalize the figures again and again. There was a concensus about this stuff some time ago already... we`ve been through it 1 million and 500 thousand times (with or without you), no further discussions needed about it concerning me. Sorry! (Правичност (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I read and read anywhere consensus. Again you have not analyzed the sources, what it actually writes.Five contributor is correct your changes in an article about the Slavs. Have you at all seen a new source that I have added in this article the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.--Sokac121 (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not giving you any more attention you internet hooligan. If you cant speak English then dont try it and there are no 5 contributors that removed my sources and claimed they arent good on Slavs, its just you! And another Croatian nationalist editor under name IvanOS who seems to be a big fan of Franjo Tudjman. Farewell (Правичност (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

We have discussed this problem before.. but ok. Nobody is negating that the lower estimate is true but we added the higher estimate (according to other examples on wikipedia) provided by this sources. The total number of any nation is not an exact science. There are variations, that is why we have a lower and higher estimate. I will copy them again.

• 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) 22:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fall Iadrian yu:)

• Serbian Unity -Page does not work, under construction:D
• Dr. Nišić`s book: 12 million in the book also writes Serbs outside the Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Serbian has 1,940.000.
• Demograpfh Stevo Pašalić`s statement: 12 million Source of four sentences! Serbs have between 2,5 to 4 million, This is some sort of interview ridiculously :).
• Serbian language speakers worldwide: 12 million (European Comission site (linguistic source)) - Serbian [Srpski] is a South Slavic language closely related to Croatian. It is spoken worldwide by about 12 million people most of whom (approximately 6.7 million) live in Serbia.) According to the census 2011 Serbia has 6.2 million Serbs In Serbia, Serbian language is also spoken part of the Roma, Croats, Bosnians ...:)

Please contributors to first read what others write then correspond. This now seems ridiculous. thanks!--Sokac121 (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t believe I failed because I checked every source when I made this list.

• Serbian Unity -Page does not work, under construction:D - Ok, did`t know that. When it was available, you saw it too. But ok, This is a dead source now. However I believe this page will came back online soon.
• Dr. Nišić`s book: 12 million Why do I care what else is written? Does it contain the info about the total number of Serbs? Yes. That is all that I am interested in.
• Demograpfh Stevo Pašalić`s statement: 12 million What`s wrong here? Stevo Pasalic is a demographer and this is an online source.
• Serbian language speakers worldwide: 12 million (European Comission site (linguistic source)) - Ok, true. This is not a very accurate source but it confirms the number greater than the lower estimate.

I believe your analysis is ridiculous. I would like to ask you to read the sources too before declaring them void or focusing on other info in the source and claiming that it is wrong. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

frontal.rs and krajinaforce.com are separatist and nationalistic sources. Stevo Pasalic is defended the war criminal Radovan Karadzic to the Hague Tribunal. Look how Stevo explain the genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina [1] this is terrible. --Sokac121 (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, web pages that HOST this books may be considered a little problematic but the web page does not provide this info, the book does. The web page is just hosting it, nothing more.Adrian (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

12 million, 11,5 [2] - (just coincedently found it) ... or 12,5 or 13 million... there are several estimations that exist and can be found on the internet, some even say 16 million and if croatian editors are bothered by 12 million, we can also find and put sources for 16 million serbs worldwide so they can finally relief :) ... but anyways we have a higher estimation of 12 million. The lower estimation is 10,5... Nobody knows the exact numbers and this is why lower and higher estimations exist on wikipedia, like adrian said. The sources mainly expose 12 million, so does the respected demograph Stevo Pašalić, so does Stanko Nišić etc... sources good enough as discussed million times before.(Правичност (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Insanely, 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 :D---Sokac121 (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book is also a nationalist. Look what in her all writes. Adrian you have not said anything about Stevo Pasalic fan of Radovan Karadzic.--Sokac121 (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book is nationalist because you say so? I don`t comment authors unless they have been proven unreliable. This is not the case. Adrian (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pravičnost!

First of all, let me tell you that I find the way you adressed me/summarized your undoing of my edit (using words as "vandalizing" and "foolish edits") as very inapropriate and offensive. Let's not be pretentious and acting like you are a supreme arbiter of Wikipedia. It is not the point of this project, but cooperation and sharing of different information in order of creating more reliable and credible artciles. My only intetnion has been and still is to improve and made article more accurate.

You rightly pointed that Wikipedia is about sources but I would modified it and say it is about reliable sources. Reliable sources are not randomly picked articles on the Internet, which credibility cannot be proved and examined. I take it as my fault putting an obscure source for the number of Serbs in the New Zealand in the absecnce of the official data - I was driven by that "better something than nothing" policy so I tried to find any source whatsoever (since that country has become a significant destiantion of Serbian emigration in last two decades). However, when there are reliable sources such as the case with the United States, putting any other but official sources and data is simply not credible. That estimate of 1.8 million Serbs in the U.S. is ridiculous overstating found on some obscure site. Only source we can rely on when talking about number of Serbs in America are official data of U.S. Census Bureau form 2010 Census, and there are only two figures that can we rely on: one is for people who delared themselves as of Sebrian descent (187,731) and that of people of Yugoslav descent (327,131), for later is adequate to mention it in the footnotes. Same goes with Canada and Australia figure: for both of these countries official figures are available (72,609 and 69,544, respectively) and there is simply no need to put any other unofficial and arbitrary figures, no matter what sites they are reffered from. Those higher estimations should be putted in the footnotes but not on par with official figures in the table itself. On the other side, I think it's appropriate to reffer to unofficial sources in case of the country which doesn't have official data on ethnicity (such as France, Sweden, etc.). I also noticed that even the figure of Montenegro's speakers of Serbian language as a mother tongue on the table found its place - in presence of official data of people who declared their ethnicity as Serbian, putting that figure of Serbian speakers is nonsense and should be removed to the footnotes where it has been located previously.

As well, I undestand Wikipedia as place which is not about the game of making higher figures and putting some nonsense numbers just to make the point to the others (in this case Croats who you pointed as ones playing those games). We Serbs need to stick to real numbers, and let Croats drown in their own idyocies.

As for grouping of the regions with significant population, I don't get your a priori negative attitude towards that possible modification. That grouping has not been my invention but something that has proven useful and adequate in the number of articles for other peoples (article about Hungarian people, for example) where table is organized that way. It provides for better visibility and easier overview of the figures. It does groupings in four directions: one is for Serbia itself as mother-country of the Serbian people, second is for neigbouring countries where Serbs are autochtonous people (either as the contituent people such as the case in BiH, or recognized minority in the other countries, or something in between which is the case for official status of Serbs in Montenegro), and the others are for diaspora destionations.

You also mentioned, "self-handed calculations". I don't get how you find arbitrary and manipulative simple summation of the available numbers such as the case of that grouping of Serbia's neighbouring countries, when all data is available and official (with exemption of so-called independent Kosovo, which census has been largely boycotteed by our people downthere). Same goes for some other groupings ("North America" for example, where there are official figures for both the US and Canada, and simmply summing those two figures I don't find manipulative at all), for others there is an approximative figure based on data from respective countries (such as the case for "rest of Europe" category, where you can give an approximative figure based on individual figures and common-sense fact that 95% or even higher percentage of Serbian diaspora is found in the countries listed on the table).

I am looking forward getting a feedback from you and I hope you find this as a constructive discussion of making the Serbs article better and more accurate. I will restrain from making any edits before I get that feedback and see your opinion. I hope we find some common ground, if not we can bring this to some higher Wiki instances and let them decide...

Pozdrav i svako dobro, Klačko (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed so many times and already concluded, you however (since this is more of a personal message) have my answer on my talk page. (Правичност (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I completely agree with Klačko. We need to use the appropriate census data. Like this seems more accurate and precise, there is no nonsense about the number of speakers Serbian language.

Правичност fact that you are Serb, you do not have a greater right to edit articles from other contributors. You attacking other users on a national basis is a violation of the rights of Wikipedia, this is a terribly. I already said before, Klačko is exactly and clearly edited article, a lot of time is has spent that this edit. Please you stop the vandalizing article.--Ladimirevcanin (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC) --Ladimirevcanin (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, whoa, hold on there Jimmy boy, you should stop making things up. First of all i noticed the fact that your a Croat and that you make same edits/reverts and use same kind of English (by google translate) and same expressions and use same accusements against me... everything as same as user Sokac212 did, .. say now.. you wouldnt happen to be exactly him; using another computer with another username, to give your other editor username support in downgrading Serbian population on this article just as you tried months ago.. would you? :) ... aynways i dont care wht your bluffing about, the way you are stepping into conversation with me - with made up accusements... isnt going to lead us nowhere. Take Klacko for instance, he wrote down his arguments and ideas in a humane and normal way. (Правичност (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Правичност is lying how all agreed with him. Klačko is neutral here, and so is the edited article.--Sokac121 (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, i never lied about anything, we will see how this will end. But i do agree the article looks neutral now, just as same as the "Croats" article :). i think we should make more cooperations like this lol. (Правичност (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

There are two approaches, mine is conservative and restrictive and Правичност's is more flexible. Both of these are legitimate as the articles on other ethnicities take one or the other approach. Since the time of that edit which is is refferenced by Sokac121 and Ladimirevcanin, I want to acknowledge that Правичност and myself did some discussing on the subject at his talk page. Through a constructive dialogue we have reached a concensus on some issues while on the other issues we couldn't agree. I was going to do a somewhat different edit of infobox, but as the previous one seems to be the one currently presented in the article and the one that I still think is the most appropriate, I at the moment don't want to proceed with that modified edit of infobox but will rather do some minor edits and corrections in the rest of the article. So as far as infobox goes, I am completely fine with the way it is structured now. Regards, Klačko (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,I would like to pint that there is official census data about Serbs in Germany and they number 197 000 people.There is a "link" or "source" here that say 700 000 and that is simply too much.Source is not so good.700 000 is just speculation.Just like it's speculation that there are 1,400,000 Serbs in Bosnia.Maybe there are but we will not know that until population census comes out.So i think we should put 197 000 people because that is official census that from Germany: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/Bevoelkerung/MigrationIntegration/AuslaendBevoelkerung2010200117004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile page 39 Scrosby85 00:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I urge to Croatian editors not to go to edit war around some numbers in infobox because there is not point in that.Then some Serbian editors will come to Croatian article and so on... cheers Scrosby85 00:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs)

Hello Scrosby i see you have rewoken with ideas about "too big numbers" on wikipedia; i must remind you that the source you are trying to present was already examined several months ago; the reason - simple : The German census 2011 simply didnt give its citizens a chance to ethnically identify. That 197,000 figure you are offering, shows how many people with "Rep. of Serbia" citizenship currently live in Germany. And we logically cannot use this figure and base how many ethnic Serbs or people of Serbian ancestry live in Germany. Many Serbs hold only German citizenships in Germany, some hold Bosnian ones, some Montenegrin, some Croatian and some others. The number 197,000 might inculde also a certain percentage of people of any other ethnic groups from Serbia. In 2006 there were something over 568,000 Serbs; more and more Serbs leave for Germany every year; the Ministry of Serbian diaspora puts a figure of ca. 800,000 Serbs in Germany and even up to 1 million. All of these arguments logically discredit your source. But thank you for your good faith propositions. (Правичност (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Правичност It was just a suggestion nothing more.But that is just one ofe the official censuses.We can't hold the Ministry of Serbian diaspora for word because it is just a speculation.Same as some of the Serbian sites and "Serbs in Germany" which claim bigger number.I will give you this article.It's on Croatian you will understand it: http://www.tportal.hr/vijesti/svijet/215840/Koliko-je-Hrvata-u-Njemackoj-i-sto-rade.html.And?i should put that?If we take 700 000 Serbs in Germany for real number we can take the 500 000 Croats in Argentina number also for real because Argentinians of Croatan ancestry claimed few years ago rigt?:) Ok i will not touch anything here and remove.Unless.... Scrosby85 01:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs)

yes i know Scrosby, well the link you gave is dead. You must know that - as i have told you - several years ago numbers for serbs were already put over 600,000 and its not surprising the number is this high. We have no other choice but to speculate, because using an old source from 2004 or 2006 (568,000) is already outdated due to newer estimations. Let me remind you also that majority of editors have already checked this source and accepted it. Serbian diaspora is way more numerous in Europe, while Croatian is way more overseas. Though Europe as a "home continent" and its countries being close to balkans and already numerous serbian communities in western europe are making sure that Serbian population lives on and grows even more, as its destinations are close and already popular for more Serbian emigrants. While overseas lands, as distant as they are are also culturaly distant and smaller peoples there assimilate more faster and more numerously than the ones in Europe, this is logical ofc. I saw multiple sources for Argentina stating 250,000 mostly, so i guess its an okay source eventhough i highly doubt any of those people speak Croatian anymore- a rough 20% maybe, if that much. While mutliple sources for germany and majority of them always state these numbers (between 600,000 and 800,000). there were some sources stating about 450,000, but those sources (which i checked) were mentioning only immigrants from Serbia and lets not forget there are alot of Bosnian and other Serbs in diaspora also - they probably make a half together against the ones from only Serbia (with KiM). This is why i find (and not only me) ca. 700,000 estimation a reliable number. But i have anyway complicated too much with this discussion... we must concentrate onto making a oncensus about both articles total populations i have wrote you my idea on Croats article, check it out pls. Regards. (Правичност (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Disgraceful behavior Правичност, when has seen that his nationalistic attitudes will not be adopted, he started with a vengeance. Правичност needs to ignore, and if starts with vandalize and mistreatment communities we need him report it to administrators.--Sokac121 (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shokac i know it hurts you when somebody makes an "answer" on your nonstop (several months) ANTI-SERBIAN "battles" on this article. I have made changes concerning concensus and agreements with Klačko; in which you havent participated, so dont make up stuff that you ever participated in any agreements here lately. All you ever did on this article is come down and RAID IT by removing any higher figure than 10 million total population. Thats all you ever did on this article, remove figures (also in infobox) that were too much for your "nazi stomach" - and you were doing these things for months and months - pure vandalism. Please restrain yourself from even commenting here, because nobody wants to listen to your Serbophobic frustrations. (Правичност (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I was to late, someone beat me to reverting! But I will post it anyway:

Sokac121: I wanted to revert your edit, not necessarily because I agree with all the edits of Правичност, but because your blind edit is completely unconstructive. Some of the edits were "harmless" adjustments to bring the numbers in the text on par with the (sourced) numbers in the infobox. You also reverted the clean-up edits from the BG19bot, completely unnecessary. If you disagree with some edits, then confront those edits and discuss them. Revert war is getting you nowhere.

Правичност and Klačko: I find it disturbing that you have lengthy discussions in Serbian about this article on a user talk page. This, together with almost never using edit summaries, makes it look like you want to own this article, separately or together. That is unacceptable. In English Wikipedia we discuss the articles in English, and we do it on the talk page of the article. And we explain our edits in an edit summary. In that way other editors may contribute, even those of us who are not having a national interest in the theme. Regards! --T*U (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T*U: I am sorry that discussion in Serbian between Pravičnost and me that we had in our personal talk pages got you disturbed. We started discussion in English and the essential part of the entire discussion was in English. We continued in Serbian discussing some minor things, but crucial parts i.e. the basic way and direction in which infobox sholud be edited, have been discussed in English. In this very talk page, just scroll just a little up, you will find that my stance on edits of infobox has been thoroughly explained, point by point. So, no need for you to come up with some conspiracy theory about us (Pravičnost and me) making some secretive arrangements since our talk pages are not closed but open and even discussion in Serbian is easily understood by concerned third parties (Croats, in this case, who seem to be most interested in the way how infobox of this article should look like). Last but not the least, way you adressed me I find a bit pretentious since you are not the one who arbitrarily decide which language I should use on my personal talk page; your complaint would be reasonable if discussion in Serbian was at this very page since this article is in English. Regards, Klačko (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanna agree; usage of Serbian language was simply more flexible for us at that moment of multiple discussions we needed to solve fast and is in no way of any harmful nature for this article, that is out of word. (Правичност (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

It became a problem when Правичност used the "agreements with Klačko" as an argument in an edit summary. I see now, however, that you have decided to continue in English, so I am not disturbed any more. Thank you! Regards! --T*U (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just fully protected this article for one week per this request. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian scientist Nikola Tesla born in Croatia, one of the most important inventors in history.

Really? Born in Croatia? Also, he was Serbian-American scientist, and that is well known. Mm.srb (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When we talk about people from the Austro-Hungarian period we must have into account that it was a multi-ethnic state, so people were not that much linked to the actual place where they were born but rather to the ethnic/cultural context of their family and origins. So that is why it isn´t at all unusual to have Slovak writters from Vojvodina, Serbian poets from Croatia, Croatian scholars from Banat, Czech inventors from Slavonia, Hungarian composers from Transilvania, German sportspeople from Srem, Austrian generals from Bosnia, etc. Not only the ethnic structure of the Empire was so complex, but also people were sent to work to other places of the empire. For instance, my great-grand father was a Czech engeneer from Prague sent by Austrians to Belgrade, Serbia, to project the construction of the railway to Istambul. He got inloved for a Serbian woman and got married, had children, etc. They ended up all staying and living in Belgrade, and slowly the new generations became Serbs (the children were half-Serb already). However there were also cases where entire families came from one region to another, lived and worked there for a while and then returned to their original homes. So you may find people of other ethnicity born in some other place in the Empire. And these are simple cases where birthplace may not correspond to the ethnicity of one person, not even going as far as well established ethnic minorities (Hungarians in Transilvania, Serbs in Croatia, Croats in Burgenland, Slovaks in Vojvodina, etc.) which is clearly the case of Tesla. FkpCascais (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ivan Štambuk:

Please stop reverting edits and sticking to complete non-sense part of the sentence which says "apart from Bosnian". Apart from what? In that sentence it is simply stated that Serbian is official language in Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. What is wrong with that statement, what is your problem with this well-known fact of status of Serbian in both of these countries? If this continues I will have to report this to the admins and simply let them do the job. Regards, Klačko (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noteced this edit-war and I think that there is a missunderstanding here. @Ivan, the sentence only numbers the countries where Serbian language has official status. It doesn´t imply that Serbian is the only official language in those countries, those are two separate things. I think you missundestood the sentence. FkpCascais (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was an error on my part - I meant to put it in the following paragraph where it says that Serbian is the only language in Europe with digraphia which strikes me as doubtful. Standard Bosnian can also be written in two scripts, plus we have things like Romanian/Moldovan (same language in two scripts) and many minority languages with digraphia (e.g. Kurdish). It was unreferenced and later restored with what appears to be randomly googled paper that nowhere specifically substantiates that claim. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the part of the sentence impliying that it is the only one using active digraphia can be taken out. FkpCascais (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if more reliable and actual official census data can be provided in order to reach a more realistic estimate on the number of Serbs. As it currently stands the article claims 10-12 million. Aside form their numbers in Serbia as per the 2011 census, the remaining data is questionable. even so the numbers in the table barely add up to 10 million. Where does the 12 million come from? This source only reports a total of 9.2 mil Serbs [3]. For Germany, which here the number is given as 700,000, official German data reports a bit over 200,000 [4]. The data presented here should reflect that.184.160.70.78 (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The number of Serbs in Germany is certainly not 700,000. I think that according to census, Serbs seventh-largest ethnic group. We already discuss [5], [6] a lot about the number of Serbs, because the numbers are too large.--Sokac121 (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I am going to fix the number of the Serbs per reliable sources: Ethnologue and UCLA and to remove used now as biased, i.e Krajnaforce, Lopusinacom, Serbianunity etc. POV-articles. Jingiby (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aaand Shokac comes to aid, all do the serbophobic paradee, yay :) ... listen guys, under 1.) in former SFRY there were aprox. 9-9,5 million Serbs (8,5 million declared as Serb and another 1 million as Yugoslavs) and even back then Serbian disapora was huge, under 2.) Ministry of Serbian Diaspora puts figures for Serbian Diaspora on up to 3,5 million. 3.) You removed all good sources and inputted Ethnologue source, which is a source for native speakers of Serbian language (and has some really funny numbers according to realistic census figures) and doesnt talk about Serbs as an ethnic group, the sources you removed were talking about Serbs and people of Serbian ancestry around the world. 4.) As million times explained and discussed, Germany DID NOT hold any census for ethnic declaring option, only citizenship.. the source which says 200,000 - is info on how many people with Serbian passport live in Germany and that number varies each year because of people who only temp. go to live in germany and return - it has nothing to do with how many Serbs as an ethnic group live in Germany. 5.) Number of Serbs is too big for Shokac because he is a Croatian anti-Serb nationalist (and his edit history reveals his goals on wikipedia and makes a proof, that all he ever did was decrease numbe rof Serbs months and months ago crying about "unreliable sources" eventough he was outnumbered 5 to 1 in discussions while on the other hand he was increasing number of Croats on "Croats" article with trash sources to make it look Croats number almost as same as Serbs do (eventough official historical demographics teach us that Serbs number ca. 1x more than Croats in the land of SFRY, KSHS and times before that on the Balkans, the diaspora numbers are also similar) - but this is not important here. What is important is 6.) that you used Ethnologue and UCLA - both linguistical sources for number of Serbs in your calculations and removed sources that indicated how many ethnic Serb people live around the world and those estimates were clearly made by a concensus of editors that that number should be between 10 (as a minimum) and 12 million (as a maximum) ... UCLA is not near a "reliable source", it is just a language learning webpage with no authors.. Ethnologue puts a figur eod 300,000 speakers in Albania that dont exist.. and both of these are lignuistical sources. Any wikipedia viewer has his own free will to believe which number is more "realistic" for himself :) lol... 7.) Total number of Serbs or any other ethnic group can never be correctly summed, there is no source that goes beneath 10 million and rarely any source that goes over 12 million, that is why the calculations were fine. I will now return everything as it was. (Правичност (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Serbian-speakers are from 9,2 Million per Ethnologue - Languages of the world, Serbian, up to 11 million per UCLA Center for World Languages - UCLA International Institute, Serbian. More, not all Serbian-speakers have Serbian identity, i.e. part of them are Montenegrins and Serbian Muslims. Conclusion: Ethnologue and UCLA give an overestinmated number. The real number of the ethnic Serbs is obviously below those numbers given by unbiased, reliable sources, as both above. Jingiby (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, provide reliable sources about the number of the Serbs. According to Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia, Ethnic Groups of the World, Jeffrey E. Cole, ABC-CLIO, 2011, ISBN 1598843036, pp. 333-334., that is obviously reliable source, the total number of the Serbs ca. 2002 was 9,7 Million people. However the number of the Serbs decreased in the last decade. Jingiby (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont you use ethnologue and other linguistical sources for number of Bulgarians on that article? ... And the way you described connections between a certain ethnic group or people of such ancestry with languages is just redicilous, there are alot of people in diaspora who are Serbs or have Serbian ancestry but dont speak the language. For example... How many of ca. 18 million Italians/people of Italian descent from USA do you think actually speak Italian? The answer is below 1 million... your claims are contradictory, we cannot make such estimations based on language. And as you can see there exist many estimations around the net, this is why we made a estimation which includes the lowest and highest possible number.. 10-12 million is totally okay and i believe Ministry for Serbian diaspora makes more accurate figures and estimations, the number of Serbs decreased in balkans mainly because they fled the wars and bad economic situations, you can see on other hand number of Serbs increasing in diaspora, for example in Vienna there were about 100,000 Serbs about 10 years ago, today estimations go already up to 200,000, other censuses that are official in certain countries show growth for number of Serbian people. ca. 8 million Serbs live in Balkans and another 2,5 - 4 million outside it, nothing biased there. We can not make estimations on our own point of view as i said. The sources were already verified by majority of editors, they are not used without no reason, there were previous conversations over this already, you seem to be late on this.. this is why your tags make no sense, sorry. (Правичност (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

news six days old! Ministry for Diaspora has been misleading the public about the number of Serbs in the world. In the world, there is no more than 2,000 organizations of Serbs there is only few several hundred. Jingiby and Yugoslavs were also included in Serbs. Yugoslavs were not Serbs, but Правичност them is counted as Serbs. The sources are unreliable, not deceive users, that nothing cannot be change. --Sokac121 (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Shokac did you just discover Mars? You presented a online news source on which writes a statement of one person and now what? He said few hundered are officially registered and so what..? I am not belonging to any of these organisations and i am still a Serb eventough i am not included in any of statistics. What is your point? Why are those numbers you just inputted "real numbers" by you? Does this source say those are real numbers? Or do ethnologue world languages project and UCLA online language learning project create statistics on how many Serbs exist and count every single Serb on planet? is that it ? .. Yugoslavs arent counted into Serbs, that is another lie, quite typicall of you Shokac... There are footnotes beneath the infobox which state how many Yugoslavs live in 3 countries (with largest populations). Eventough Yugoslavs are undoubtebly Serbs who declare as Yugoslavs because of their passion and nostalgy for the ex-Yugoslavia country or either of Serbian origin or mixed Serbo-Croate or Serbo-Muslim or any other marriages, it is simply just a way of self-identifying, it is not a nationality nor an ethnic group. You got sources in footnotes also confirming my statement here - Yugoslavs are undoubtebly of Serbian origin. I think you should question yourself whetter you have a problem with yourself, you seem to be obsessed with decreaisng number of Serbs on wikipedia, you were involved into this crap 6 months ago, 4 months ago, 2 months ago, and now again. Is this your life goal? Your health is okay? Seriously. Lighten up, you cannot decrease number of Serbs on planet on wikipedia using unreliable material or wrong material while on other hand increase number of Croats with similar material (unworthy material). (Правичност (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I have made a clarification about the Montenegrins, who are incl. into the number of the Serbian-speakers highest estimate as per source - UCLA. By the way Правичност, the highest number of the Bulgarian-speakers per UCLA is 9 Mill. but the number given on that article is underestimated to 8 Mill. because the number of Bulgarians decreased in the last decade, also there are around 0.5 Mill. Pomaks in Turkey, who speak Bulgarian, but they do not identify themselves as Bulgarians. Check it. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jinglby what you did on Bulgarians article is not important for this article, i saw and i however dont support new changes on Bulgarians article (some yes, but most not), because you simply cant use "online language learning websites" as a reliable source, nor any linguist source, because linguist sources dont do researches on ethnic groups, they make studies on languages and only languages. The minimum number pf Serbs you can count from current infobox is ~10 million, not including all countries of the world, not including those who declared as Yugoslavs, Montenegrins or something else (perhaps as Americans) or not inckluding those who didnt declare at all on censuses. First source says 10,5 million, the others mention numbers over 11 million and some over 12 million, it is quite realistic that a nation which used to count over 9 million people in Balkans produced a diaspora of over 3 million people if not over 4 mil. throughout whole of history, nobody can know exact numbers... you cant just write down some number includes Montenegrins if a source doesnt say so (in this case it was a verry bad source too) and use a linguist source for a minimal estimation. That is unnacceptable. Just leave it as it is for now, i recommend you also change those figures and sources on Bulgarians article, because such sources dont define numbers of ethnic groups. (Правичност (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Правичност, stop biased edits. Use then Academic publication that is specialicised in European ethnic groups and their number as Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia, Ethnic Groups of the World, Jeffrey E. Cole, ABC-CLIO, 2011, ISBN 1598843036, pp. 333-334., that is obviously reliable source, which claims the Serbs ca. 2002 were 9,7 Million people and reduce their number to 9,2 Mill. as per decreased data from the last census in 2011. ABC-CLIO is a publisher of reference works for the study of history and social studies in academic, secondary school, and public library settings. Check that and do not use ridiculous POV-sites. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Enough editwarring. Let's try to keep the dispute here, on the talkpage. We need more and better sources; we don't need more reverts. bobrayner (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jinglby i simply can not understand how can someone write down figures and make conclusions for certain statements on wikipedia like you (making selfy mathemathics, astronomical calculations and figuring out possibilities that a certain source could include (or could be connected to some data) that you yourself have "heard" somewhere or saw it on youtube for example. Thats just nonsence. What in the world does ethnologue source has to do with the source you ar epresenting here? Where and when did number of Serbs on planet reduce to 9,7 million and then to 9,2 million by what logic and theory and when did you saw those Serbs "go off this planet" ? :) I would love to hear this ... The soruce you are presenting about encylopedia is okay but it is just one source; there are 2 books (that Shokac removed) which included 11,5 and 12 million. You have no senseable arguments for your edits, thus i have no idea where did you pick up Montenegins... id say by your theory, that higher estimation higher because it may include some "others" ... but where does it say that, which source? Those are language learning pages you are presenting man! They contain no data about ethnic group Serbs. And by what logic you think decreasing 9,7 to 9,2 million is "logical" due to last census in Serbia? In 2002 census there were 6,2 million declared Serbs, on this census there are 6 million declared Serbs, another 100-200,000 Serb reffugees might not be counted in this census again, and you forgot 100,000 Serbs live in Kosovo. Bad arguments, verry bad. There are 4 good sources mentioning figures up to 12 million, 1 source mentioning 10,5 and i can find another couple of sources mentioning 10 million Serbs or more. The problem with you is you got only one source with figure 9,7 million and where can i even rad that statement on that link??? And on the other hand you are pushing a linguist source Ethnologue of 9,2 million which has nothing to do with ethnic group Serbs and that number is questionable, that would mean only 500,000 people are native to Serbian lang. in Diaspora. And if you would put 9,2 million that would mean Serbian diaspora only counts 1,2 million people - but that is only a figure of how many Serbs live in German speaking countries :D, where is the rest of the world. You are trying to massively decrease number of Serbs on this article (which would be verry good for editor Sokac121 who is used to do this one and same thing for last year, while he would want to make no. of Croats look larger) by using bad argumentation, un-construct sources and by making your own scientific calculations and guessing. This isnt a circus for eevry anti-serbian nationalist to come and raid this article every bit of time and i see Sokac keeps bringing newer and newer allies to fight on this article for his life goal. . . mad house... there are 8 million Serbs in Balkans and between 2 mil.+ and 4 mil.+ abroad, you can find this info anywhere, that means 10-12 million Serbs worldwide... and thats it.. dont need no linguistic third party sources for that. Enough said. (Правичност (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Правичност, сheck Verifiability and Reliable sources. We must base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources. Other reliable sources include: university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, mainstream newspapers. Your sources failed to corresponded to those criterias. They are not reliable. They have a poor reputation for checking the facts, they lack meaningful editorial oversight, and have an apparent conflict of interest. Thank you Jingiby (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They failed? They arent reliable? Why? because you say so? That is just your own opinion, like i said you missed out several discussions over this before and now you come up with linguistical sources to use, that cannot simply go. And btw ethnologue must be verry university-leveled research institution to find 300,000 native Serbian speakers in Albania (299,000 more from reality) and 4,5 million Serbian speakers in Serbia (2 million less from reality) ... verry verry accurate and reliable. I am not going to allow this article fall into circus, unless supreme admin users decide to supprt clown sources and self-made calculations and estimations. (Правичност (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Because all the reasons mentioned above. If you find sources more reliable then UCLA, Ethnologue and ABC-CLIO, then provide them here for discussion. If no, stop using biased Serbian private sites, and keep those numbers based on neutral references, that are available at the moment. Keep in mind, that data published on the sites of nationalistic organizations, as Serbian Unity Congress for example, you have used before, are extremely unreliable. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 06:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because of what reasons? Again, they are nationalist because you say so? And who are you? Please get me some editor i can talk to on an intelligent level, i dont wanna waste time with you. You are using sources who talk about language, not ethnic groups, period! (Правичност (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]