Talk:Serbs: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 155: Line 155:

:1) ”Notable people”/Sectioning: In my opinion, your arguments for restructuring the paragraphs are not well-grounded. First, what is the point of your claim that ””Notable people” is not a particularly encyclopedic heading”? What exactly do you mean by that? Second, your assertion that this is especially true ”since several sections, such as Art and Literature, do not focus solely on individual achievements” does not hold up. In the Arts section, 13 out of 15 sentences are exclusively about individuals and their personal achievements (of the remaining two, one is a redundant introductory sentence, leaving essentially just one sentence out of 14 that is not individual-focused). In the Literature section, only 3 out of 12 sentences are not centered on individuals. In all the other sections (Cinema, Music, Philosophy, Science, and Sport), virtually every sentence concerns prominent individuals and their accomplishments. To put this in perspective: out of a total of 74 sentences across these sections, only 4 or 5 (depending on whether we exclude the redundant introductory sentence in Arts) are not focused on prominent individuals – that is 5% of the total content. ”’When 95% of the text is devoted to prominent individuals and their achievements, it seems reasonable to reconsider grouping it under a “Notable people” section”’, subdivided by field (Arts, Literature, Music, Cinema, Science, Sports, etc.), as it was before your edit. This aspect of the article’s general organization and sectioning is far more consequential than issues like images or other minor details, on which we have spent considerably more time discussing. By contrast, we have barely touched on this structural question. I would therefore like to hear more detailed arguments from you on this point, particularly given that 95% of the content concerns individuals and their personal achievements. I already told you erlier that it seems to me that you may be missing a key distinction here: the purpose of this article is not to present the contributions of the nation (that is the role of the [[Serbia]] article), but rather to highlight the accomplishments of the Serb people through their most prominent individuals – achievements that can be personally attributed to the great men and women of this particular ethnic group.

:2) Total population figure: I’ve written extensive, “War and Peace”-length arguments in this discussion about the 9 million figure, thoroughly addressing every possible angle, yet I’m not receiving any serious counter-arguments whatsoever as to why should we go with some higher figure. We can’t rely on gut feelings on this one. Let me remind you, as I did with @Theonewithreason, that I was the one who back in 2018 edited that 10 million figure that you are clinging to (replacing the previous dubious estimate of 12-13 million). Not to mention that throughout the entire period, there was a footnote in the infobox stating: ”total figure is the sum of all referenced populations”. If we stick to that principle, the current total would be 8.5 million, or 8-9 million if you prefer a range. I rounded up to 9 million for reasons I’ve already explained in detail.

:3) Images: As for the images, although I understand the potential need to reduce image congestion, I have some issues about your edits. I’m fine with keeping only Mokranjac in the Music section, and I could grudgingly accept removing the collage of poets. I am also ok with images that replaced collage in Arts section (although there’s no need for two images as it creates unnecessary clutter, one with Marina Abramović would be just fine). However, I believe removing the collage in the Cinema section represents a serious downgrade. That collage featured internationally recognized cinematic figures: two Hollywood stars (from different eras), one of the most acclaimed European directors of all time (at least in terms of awards), and one of the very few domestic actors with a significant international (European) career. It was replaced by a single photo of actors and actresses (leaving one of them unacknowledged, which is problematic in itself) most of whom, with the exception of Bata Živojinović, are virtually unknown outside the former Yugoslavia. Heck, if we retain a collage of notable athletes, why can’t we do the same for cinema.

:4) Miscellaneous: I believe the image of the wolf in the Names section should not have been removed. It was an emblematic photo accompanied by a good explanation of ~~its~~ connection to Serbs. Additionally, the sentence added to the Sports section is, in my opinion, irrelevant there and would fit better in a section on traditions (if it needs to be included at all). Rope-pulling and etc., while a proto-sports, don’t qualify as a sport in the modern sense and is more accurately described as a folklore-like tradition.

:4) Miscellaneous: I believe the image of the wolf in the Names section should not have been removed. It was an emblematic photo accompanied by a good explanation of connection to Serbs. Additionally, the sentence added to the Sports section is, in my opinion, irrelevant there and would fit better in a section on traditions (if it needs to be included at all). Rope-pulling and etc., while a proto-sports, don’t qualify as a sport in the modern sense and is more accurately described as a folklore-like tradition.

Regards, [[User:Klačko|Klačko]] ([[User talk:Klačko|talk]]) 12:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project’s importance scale.

	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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project’s importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montenegro, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montenegro 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.MontenegroWikipedia:WikiProject MontenegroTemplate:WikiProject MontenegroMontenegro
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project’s importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yugoslavia 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.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project’s importance scale.

I do understand that it is highly more desirable for Serb nationalists that the Serb ethnonym be of pure Slavic origin. It is very palpable here where the modern understanding of the Serb ethnonym as Iranic in origin is being blatantly downplayed. The “proto-Slavic” theory is not the most prevalent in modern scholarship nor would a proto-Slavic origin necessarily be the very first origin of this ethnonym. It could have been lifted into proto-Slavic from the Sarmatians well before a transfer of the ethnonym onto a Slavic populace began. The non-English sources offered here to posit a pure Slavic origin are both outdated as they are sub-par. The Iranic theory was given due weight in the article for many years but has been downplayed since. Please serious editors amend this or I will be forced to create an account and provide numerous contemporary sources stemming from respected institutions. The Croats article, whose ethnonym has a similar origin, while also downplaying the Iranic theory does not do so to the level seen here. All of the Croats and Serbs mentioned in the DAI had undeniably Iranic names. They were an elite ruling caste imposing themselves on the Sclaveni in the western Balkans following the collapse of Rome. While Wikipedia – due its design at heart with vast volumes of editing by anonymous users – never can compare to an academic standard which would require peer reviewing by merited actually identifiable individuals disclaiming any conflict of interest, it would still be nice to see some more neutrality here instead of the blatant POV. I know for a fact that the Serb community has a very strong presence on Wikipedia which is also why it is so disheartening to see them leave this POV unchecked. ~2025-38935-10 (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is ongoing edit-warring in the infobox over the total population of Serbs (~9 million vs. 11 million). I’d like to reach consensus and stop the reverts.

The ~9 million figure is simply the arithmetic sum of every country-by-country Serb population already listed and individually cited in the article (Serbia 2022 census, Montenegro 2023, Croatia 2021, BiH 2013, plus diaspora from official German/Austrian//US/etc. statistics).

This aggregation aligns with WP:CALC which explicitly allows routine calculation when based on cited numbers. It’s not the original research, just routine addition of cited numbers. And it’s transparent: any reader can verify by adding up the references.

This method (displaying the straightforward sum of the cited figures as the worldwide total) has been the long-standing, stable practice on this article for several years (easily visible in the page history since at least 2020-2021).

The recent change to 11 million by Theonewithreason introduced a single source whose content is inaccessible, making the claim unverifiable. Per WP:VER, an unverifiable source should not override the transparent sum of many checkable, up-to-date reliable sources.

Additionally, this change broke the article’s long-standing editorial practice without prior discussion.

I therefore restored the calculated total per WP:CALC.

Regards, Klačko (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I really appreciate the work that has recently gone into this and other articles about the Serbs. The recent edits have introduced radical, in-depth changes to the article. Some of those changes are improvements, but others are not. Sourced material was removed, many images were added, and the article is not looking great, and the paragraphs were reorganized in ways that are not always great. For example, the “Notable people” section now feels redundant; the idea is to present the contributions of the nation, not only notable individuals. In addition, the debate about the population count remains unresolved. We also lost substantial content (for example, the info. on Rudjer Boskovic), while new material was added that treats the Kosovo myth solely from the perspective of alleged mythomania? Those are just a few examples. Furthermore, Klačko has removed the infobox organization he originally implemented, including the “Native” and “Diaspora” fields. In addition, I’m not sure whether we should list countries with only about 1,000 members of the ethnic group in the infobox.

Making sweeping changes without explaining them in great detail, and opening a new TP topic only when other editors disagree, is not the best way to go. I’m not very satisfied with the recent edits. Before these changes, I spent a great deal of time and patience reviewing every small edit. Now there are so many alterations that I feel compelled to restore the article to the last stable version (20:52, 6 December 2025), per our longstanding policies, until these issues are resolved. Please use the TP more, and let’s work through this bit by bit, civilly and in good faith.

Recently involved editors: @Klačko and Theonewithreason:. — Sadko (words are wind) 16:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback Sadko. I appreciate your take on all of this, and I will try to clarify the reasoning behind the recent edits. First of all, all changes I made were in good faith and thoroughly explained in edit box summaries (I fail to see what sweeping changes were not explained in great detail) with general intent of bringing the article to higher standards, both content- and linguistically-wise.

I agree that further discussion is productive, and I’m happy to go through any individual point on the talk page.

The previous Arts, Literature, Cinema, Music, etc. sections were almost entirely lists of individuals and their contributions not general cultural contributions of a group. So I grouped it under the Notable people section. It seems to me that you miss the point about that: the idea is NOT to present the contributions of the nation (for that serves article Serbia) but accomplishments of Serb people thorugh prominent individuals – accomplishments that can be attributed personally to the great men and women of this ethnic group. All the general cultural traits (traditions, folklore, language, symbols, etc.) remained grouped under Culture because that indeed is culture of Serb people as a whole.

Rudjer Bošković mention seemed bit controversial but if you insist go and reinsert it. His ethnicity is highly disputed and not straightforwardly Serb. This risks WP:NPOV issues, you know how it goes here in the Balkans and that spills over to Wikipedia too. Not to mention that he’s already covered in articles like Croats and List of Croats. I find listing Ivo Andrić controversial too since he was not by any means ethnic Serb although he is part of Serbian literature. This is after all article about Serbs as an ethnic group (not Serbia or Serbian literature which he is no doubt part of it).

As for Kosovo Myth, the intention was not to present the Kosovo myth through the lens of mythomania, not at all, but as the foundation myth of Serbs as an ethnic group, kind of myth that many people/ethnicities have. We can refine the wording, or move it altogether if you find it problematic.

As for many images added, I found it regretable to have collage of notable athletes but not that of notable artists, cinematic figures, poets, etc.

The infobox fields Native and Diaspora that I introduced it myself were non-standard and not used consistently in related articles, so I decided to remove it. I recently discussed it with you.

My edits for population figures were to ensure that the numbers are consistently sourced and remove outdated figures. As for countries with Serb population of 1,000 or so, usual threshold in the articles about the ethnic groups of similar size is 1,000 although some go down even further and list countries with 100+ populations.

All in all, if specific data/images/or other content are problematic, let’s discuss them Sadko individually rather than revert them all to the “stable” version which was rather incoherent, not to mention language quality which was abysmal and I put great effort to improve it.

Regards, Klačko (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One more observation or rather proposition. I urge you all to compare content in the subsections of Arts, Cinema, Philosophy as well as Literature and Music before and after my yesterdays edits. To all mentioned subsections significant amount of new content was added and language flow and style was improved, thus would be glad to hear what specific edits there would be regarded as problematic (besides removing Rudjer Bošković, which we can settle on fairly quickly)? I would really like to hear which added content has issues of that magnitude (if any) that needs to be reverted to previous stable version? Klačko (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, your edits are clearly well-intentioned, and there are numerous improvements made to the article on several levels. At the same time, there are many changes that I do not think are for the better. I have noticed that the edits tend to be too Serbia-centered, bearing in mind that 40% of the nation lives outside Serbia and that many Serbs in Serbia settled there at some point. In addition, you remove content too easily or too arbitrarily, and several edits were left completely unexplained. My advice is not to strictly follow a supposed “standard” used in articles about other ethnic groups. These standards have changed rapidly over the years, and I am sure you have noticed the same. Most of the illustrations and chosen photographs or collages were also not particularly strong.

Very much so, there is something called WP:STABLE, and anyone could revert in a case like this, and they would be right to do so. Out of respect for the work done and the fact that we have a common goal, I do not plan to do so yet, and I’ll try to address what I perceive to be issues, point by point:

I believe that the Native/Diaspora division, with RS, B&H and MNE listed, was a neat, elegant, and original solution.
Bošković should be included, especially since the formulation followed NPOV principles.
The section on the Kosovo Myth definitely needs rewording.
Mila Turajlić, who received probably the most important awards in documentary filmmaking worldwide, and Stefan Arsenijević, who won the Berlin Golden Bear, were both removed.
The illustrations are not well chosen; there are too many of them, and some collages feel oddly assembled. One collage for both poets and writers, for instance, does not work well.
- You also removed the depiction of the Battle of Cer, the first Allied victory of the war. This battle has global significance, and there has never been a good reason to omit it. The new image representing the Jasenovac camp looks amateurish. The image on genetics was removed as well, which is fine. I do like the image in the “Cuisine” section, and we had a similar one not long ago.
- I’ve previously agreed to a number of new illustrations, but the latest additions have not really helped the article that much. Btw. I originally created the collages currently used to illustrate the article (Literature, Science, Sports). In the new collage, Jovan Cvijić was removed and Mileva Marić was added, although her contributions to science remain questionable. Cvijić is the founder of geography in Serbia, a pioneer in several fields, and an extremely productive scholar.
The information about the Serbo-7 group of scientists and engineers was also removed.
You consider the inclusion of Andrić controversial, but I simply do not see why. He is mentioned under “Literature,” which is entirely appropriate. He was clear about who he was, regardless of his origins.
This is not primarily about listing notable individuals. I understand your point that many cultural achievements were created collectively, such as Serbian epic poetry. Still, in some sections it is necessary to discuss individuals. A useful comparison can be found in the Culture section of the English people article.
Regarding style, brackets are used far too often. The Music section is a good example. The writing could flow much better.
This should have stayed, as it provides a stronger introduction and is supported by excellent sources. It could be phrased as: “Serbs share common cultural heritage.”
A few days ago you removed the entry: “The Hungarian citizen Momčilo Tapavica was the first Slav and Serb to win an Olympic medal at the 1896 Summer Olympics.” I do not understand why this would be considered irrelevant. If the sentence seemed awkward or lacked context, it could have been improved rather than removed.
The first sentence under /Literature/ is perhaps WP:PEACOCK.
The total number of the population should be c. 10 mill. or 9–10. Who can be considered a part of an ethnic group can be interpreted in a number of ways. Just counting the census data is good, but there will be a number of people who refused to say that they belong to the group. Just see the most recent census in Serbia: 10% of citizens did not declare. Arguably a big part of this 10% are of Serb origin.
You have completely reworded this sentence, and not for the better: A) With the decline of the Serbian state of Duklja in the late 11th century, Raška separated from it and replaced it as the most powerful Serbian state. B) With the collapse of Duklja in the late 12th century, Raška gained independence and succeeded it as the most powerful Serbian polity.
Both of these were removed: There are more Serbian scientists and scholars working abroad than in the Balkans. At least 7000 Serbs who have a PhD are working abroad.[167] Medical specialists from Serbia have performed a number of operations which have been described as pioneer works.[168][169] How is this not notable? This data can give the reader important context about the Serb diaspora and medicine.
This claim was introduced – The founder of modern Serbian philosophy is considered Dositej Obradović, an Enlightenment thinker, writer, educator and the first Minister of Education of Serbia, who promoted rationalism and Secular humanism. It’s unsourced and should be checked. He popularized Enlightenment-thinking and did a lot of work for the education of the nation, that much is true.
You’ve removed the fact that Croatian Serbs were the bulk of Partisan forces from Croatia until the fall of Italy, and that Bosnian Serbs were the majority of Partisans from Bosnia. Okay, I guess that you think that the information about the overall percentage is only relevant for this article. But did you, by any chance, copy this information to other articles? This is a general question: if we remove something that is reliably sourced, in my book, we should try to copy it, with attribution, to another appropriate article.

Additional ideas:
- In the science section, perhaps mention that Branko Milanović is a leading expert on inequality.
- We have an image of a wolf, the national animal, with good references, but there is no mention of the national animal, bird, or flower. One sentence could cover all of this.
- We could also link articles to figures; for example, 300,000 would link to Serbs in Austria.
- We should pay closer attention not to use too many images that are already part of Serbia.

That’s all for now. Thanks in advance, for your time and effort. — Sadko (words are wind) 20:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than willing to agree on most points you raised.

1. Ruđer Bošković – agree to restore him.

2. Kosovo Myth – agreed. Feel free to suggest exact wording or change it way you think it is appropriate or even remove it, since that was a recent addition.

3. Mila Turajlić and Stefan Arsenijević. I have no objection to including them, even though their work consists of documentaries and short films rather than feature films. Just for clarity: Stefan Arsenijević received the Golden Bear Short Film Award, which is entirely different award to Golden Bear which is awarded only to feature films. It was unfortunate that Želimir Žilnik was not mentioned at all until my edits two days ago, considering he is the only director from the region to have won the main Golden Bear.

4. Images. fair point, some collages were hastily done. My goal was simply to include at least one woman per collage for gender balance. Cvijić is important in Serbia and the region, but his international recognition is almost non-existant. Mileva Marić has considerable global name recognition due to her association with Einstein, but also because of the ongoing international public interest in her own contributions. You yourself mentioned Branko Milanović, who is already far more widely recognised worldwide than Cvijić ever was. Tesla, Pupin and Milanković are in a league of their own. For the remaining spot we can find someone with a stronger international profile than Cvijić. I proposed Mileva Marić, but I’m open for some other names.

6. Collages for writers and poets. I agree that two collages can feel cluttered. My reasoning for adding poets collage was simply that excluding poets while highlighting prose writers would underrepresent a field in which Serbs have produced some of their most acclaimed authors. That said I’m open to fix it, whether a combined writers and poets collage with careful selection or any other layout that avoids giving the impression that poetry is secondary.

7. Battle of Cer and Stone Flower images. I still think that from the perspective of Serbian history itself the Serbian Revolution is more consequential than any event from World War I, it is literally the moment modern Serbia was born and one image from that period should be present in the article. As for Stone Flower, I have no objection if you prefer the previous image. The current image shows the sculpture from a straightforward angle in diiference to previous image that makes it impossible for the reader to fully grasp the sculpture’s actual form and proportions, not to mention image being a bit too artistic for an encyclopaedic article.

8. “Common cultural heritage”. I think it is redundant to repeat same sentence in lead and then again down the article. Not to mention that shared cultural heritage is inherent to each and every ethnic group – that is what makes them, among other things, an ethnic group.

9. Momčilo Tapavica. Being the first Olympic medalist is historically interesting, but it is not by itself a strong enough criteria for inclusion otherwise we would have to list practically every Serbian Olympic medalist. His overall notability and impact are minor, he has very little presence beyond that single Olympic participation and is virtually unknown among Serbs nowadays. I consider his inclusion more a matter of trivia than genuine notability. But again, if you insist on mentioning Tapavica, I am fine with that.

10. Medical specialists and PhDs. Those are not a pure scientific but rather professional achievements and are not of encyclopaedic relevance nor is a common practice in articles about other ethnic groups. Statistical claims about degrees, i.e. raw numbers without notability of the individuals are not comparable to concrete scientific achievements (major inventions, widely recognized contributions, etc.). Nation that gave the mankind likes of Tesla doesn’t need to boast around the number of people having PhD degrees. I’m certain that a neutral reader would not be impressed, in fact it would probably have the opposite effect: rather than demonstrating strength, it can be seen as insecure. Not to mention that claim about Serbian doctors performing “pioneer works” is article from the tabloid Blic that discusses a single sensational case – reported penis transplantation to a transgender woman. By the way, don’t you think, say, Romanians or Ukrainians or many others also have thousands or tens of thousands of PhD holders working abroad? Serbs are not unique or rare case in that regard. In contrast to anonymous headcounts, I have added individually notable scientists such as Tihomir Novakov and Miodrag Radulovački.

11. Serbo Seven. In my opinion, it is more of a trivia-like info but I am ok if you think they deserve to be mentioned. Often times “less is more” and we should not overextend article and fall in trap of endless listings.

12. Dositej Obradović. He was philosopher indeed, as much as was Diderot and other French Englihtment figures, there are numerous sources that can back that claim. As a matter of fact, Serbs didn’t have a modern philosopher before him at all. Maybe wording is a bit strong so I could rephrase to the more common formulation: …is regarded as the key figure of the Serbian Enlightenment and the first major Serbian philosopher of the modern era ot something like that (with source provided, of course).

Regards, Klačko (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for total number of population and infobox in general.

1. Total figure. If you count figures of all countries listed you come up with total figure of barely 8.5 million and there are no countries left unlisted (except those with miniscule Serb population) so there’s no much to go upwards. Those are the official and latest data, backed by verifiable source for each and every country listed. There are two reasons why it should be rounded on 9 million.

First, there were around 456,000 people in the last Serbian census who either didn’t declare their ethnicity or whose data were taken from administrative registers/databases. If you extrapolate the share of Serbs in the general population to this figure of 456,000, you come up with ~360,000. On top of that, you have the “Yugoslav American” ancestry classification in American censuses: in 2023, some 203k people reported this ancestry, and many, if not the majority, among them were of ethnic Serb origin (it is doubtful that those of Croat, Slovene, Kosovo Albanian, or Vojvodina Hungarian origin gave prominence to Yugoslav over their primary ancestries; this leaves a pool of Serbs, Bosniaks, Macedonians, and Montenegrins, where Serbs are the overwhelming majority). The same goes for “Yugoslav Canadians”, but they are of minor size compared to Yugoslav Americans (only 30k). You may notice that I have added footnotes in the infobox, placed next to the figures for Serbia and the United States, in order to explain these nuances. So the calculation is simple: 8.5m + 360k + 100/150k, and that is it – the maximum possible figure. I would be more than happy to live in a world where I can reliably claim 10 million or even higher figure as a worldwide total for Serbs, and I could even find some obscure sources to back that claim, but we don’t need inflated numbers.

Second, this method of displaying the rounded figure which is the sum of the cited figures (with a footnote saying “total figure is sum of all referenced populations”), has been the long-standing, stable practice on this article for at least 4-5 years, if not longer. We should continue that practice as per WP:CALC, which explicitly allows routine calculation when based on cited numbers. It is not original research as Theonewithreason implied – it is just routine addition of cited numbers. The only difference now is that the figures no longer add up to 10 million (nor did they before; it was more like 9.3–9.5 million but that is another story now) but to 9 million at most.

2. Infobox structure. We already discussed this recently. The infobox is a rather statistical thing with no other considerations whatsoever. The “Regions with significant populations” section is a purely statistical parameter; it says “…significant populations” and not native, historically important, etc. populations, so there is only one criteria to be taken into account, the numerical one. Otherwise it would not make sense to include Montenegro and exclude Germany, Austria, and so forth, which have larger ethnic Serb populations. I agree with you about historical considerations; I tried to make the distinction through the native/diaspora division, but it just didn’t sit well. I gave it time and a chance, but it looked really awkward from the beginning. Besides, Serbia and BiH are also native and would thus be excluded, so the list for other countries should be without any divisions, as is standard in other articles.

Regards, Klačko (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In order not to write another wall of text, and so that we can move efficiently and finish the work on the article before the New Year and Christmas holidays, I suggest this:

1) Start making changes and tweaks per the TP. After that, I’m going to make some changes only after you finish your part, and after that we can review and have another round of debate. I take your point about the number of PhD holders abroad. On the other hand, I disagree about Cvijić. He was internationally recognised, and he was not only a prolific scholar but also a reformer of university education; basically, he is on the level of Vuk Karadžić in his field. Mileva Marić Einstein is more popular but she is not more notable. Dositej Obradović being the first philosopher needs to be referenced or perhaps reworded.In order to have a number of prolific philosophers, a society needs stability and a certain level of democracy. I think we can add Tapavica under /Sports/, about Serbs representing other nations, something short and on point.

2) About the total number: I understand your arguments and points. In my opinion, instead of the previously stable c. 10 million figure, we could go lower, with the middle ground being 9.5 million. That seems like a reasonable compromise. I also disagree with the 11 million figure. — Sadko (words are wind) 19:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deal.

Two more things…

As for the total number in the infobox, we shouldn’t turn this into an auction. Nine million is the absolute maximum we can reasonably round to. That figure already takes into account 8.5 million from the referenced populations, plus some room for growth through the undeclared/unknown ethnicity in Serbia and a portion of Yugoslav Americans. There’s simply nothing more we can realistically add. In other Balkan countries with significant Serb populations, there’s no equivalent to Serbia’s 8% of total population going under “undeclared”/”unknown” categories that we can cling to and “extract” some undeclared Serbs, and in the diaspora there’s no group comparable to Yugoslav Americans (Canadian Americans are minor exception with 30k); across European countries, the Yugoslav option was replaced by individual nationalities a long time ago so there’s no pool to draw more Serbs from there either.

I’m really curious to know what is problematic in that rewording you mentioned: “You have completely reworded this sentence, and not for the better: A) With the decline of the Serbian state of Duklja in the late 11th century, Raška separated from it and replaced it as the most powerful Serbian state. B) With the collapse of Duklja in the late 12th century, Raška gained independence and succeeded it as the most powerful Serbian polity? Klačko (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to come up with a solution that would be a “middle ground.” We should also check reliable sources, like books, to compare and contrast. Let’s see if other editors would like to weigh in. If needed, we can start an RfC on the topic, and that will be it. Maybe my comments sound a bit too sharp; I thought the style could be better, but it’s okay. All in all, I’ll wait for your upcoming tweaks, and then I’ll step in, and we’ll see after that. Best. — Sadko (words are wind) 15:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, currently I am not able to participate in lengthy discussion, because of my work, so I just looked a bit into this one, and I do agree with Sadko regarding that most of the text should be restored before December 6th, so per WP:concensus I will support reverts, as for my edition on total number of Serbs, my suggestion is to restore back the figure of 10 million circa, as it is the most neutral point of view, although I support the way of thinking of editor Klacko that only official census numbers should be involved, I also believe that those presented numbers are not from all countries, also in the last census lots of Serbs did not declared ethnicity, there are lots of Serbs that work in EU that did not registered, like the official estimation of Serbs just around Paris today is 90 000- etc the sources that I encountered usually mentioned 11 million Serbs even this one I posted which is verifiable, there are sources like this one [[1]] (all though I would never put it in the article since it is a newspaper article not a official census) which mentions 12 million, a figure that also exists, so my idea was to put a something between 9-11 million since I noticed there is a lot of articles about other nations, with numbers that varies a lot i.e Albanians, with estimation between 7-10 million, probably overblown one – so my suggestion is 10 million like it was before. As for other edits I do agree with Sadko that to call a Kosovo Myth just a mythologisation is wrong, the number of people with phd that was omitted is also wrong, the sentence that was before: With the decline of the Serbian state of Duklja in the late 11th century, Raška separated from it and replaced it as the most powerful Serbian state. should be restored as it explains the historical situation way better in short, lots of information is removed I dont support this.Theonewithreason (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought that hard figures would be a matter of discussion.

I don’t think an RfC would be a good idea for a simple reason: there shouldn’t be democracy and voting about plain numbers. Not to mention Serbs’ soft spot for big numbers (our beloved megalomania). We should either stick to the figures referenced or credibly refute them with reliable sources.

Neither is it a fair attitude to talk about compromise or finding a middle ground in a situation when we have a total figure of 8.5 million backed by sources (with an estimated max. 0.5 million “uncharted” that would round the total figure to 9 million) and one editor says 11 million and we should compromise and look for a numerically middle figure. Either we have a verifiable and credible figure or not; every other way is nothing else but pure speculation. In a case when we have data from official statistical institutes and registers, only those are reliable, not books, not newspaper interviews, not personal opinions or takes… Otherwise, me or somebody else can come up with a figure of, say, 15 million Serbs worldwide because some “Deretić” or “Jovanka Jolić” claimed that figure in an interview to Večernje Novosti or BN Televizija did its own research which I will proudly cite as a credible source and then we go down the road of compromise and take a numerically middle figure which would be what, 12 million!?

As for @Theonewithreason‘s take “that those presented numbers are not from all countries”, I would like to know what countries are actually missing? Here we have referenced population for every country with a sizable ethnic Serb population (going down to those with as few as 1,000 ethnic Serbs) and there aren’t many countries left that we can even look at and search for data in this regard (e.g. there are only 7 European countries that are not listed in the infobox, and all of them have less than 1k ethnic Serbs: Finland has 702 “Serbia-born residents” as per 2023; Portugal 425 “Serbian citizens”, Ireland 343, etc.). I mean, in Mongolia or Nicaragua and dozens of other countries Serbs are probably in single digits, and there are certainly numerous countries such as, say, Lesotho and Nepal with no Serbs at all (no Hungarians at all, no ethnic Bulgarians, or ethnic Czechs for that matter). Heck, even if we assume that each country left unreferenced in the infobox (155 of them in total) has 999 ethnic Serbs, we are still talking about max. 150k more.

At the end, let me remind you that the previous stable and long-standing version (for 4–5 years) has a footnote at the bottom of the infobox with the following text: “total figure is sum of all referenced populations”. If we stick with that principle, it would be 8.5 million now (even back then the sum of all referenced populations was way lower than 10 million but obviously nobody bothered to do the math) and the only reasonable compromise that could be made is to round it to 9 million for reasons explained in my yesterday’s exchange with @Sadko in this discussion (undeclared/unknown category in the 2002 Serbian census and Yugoslav Americans). Klačko (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing megalomanic if we say that there is a bigger number of Serbs as you like to estimate, also you are obviously misinterpret information, because this is an article about Serbs not about Serbia born people, also you posted sources like the N1 regarding i.e Serbs in Austria in which they also saying that these are a lot more Serbs than represented figures, also even if we use your method of calculation the numbers of Serbs is bigger than your estimation of 1.5 million abroad (in which you obviously didn’t include the whole info of people in USA) so you are here talking about Djeretic and megalomania and in the same time posting the same type of stuff. Obviously this article needs to be returned back to wp:stable previous version. Theonewithreason (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I am not estimating just simply doing the math. Adding figures, one by one as per WP:CALC.

Secondly, I am not misinterpreting facts, please check the figures: for Austria that you mentioned, in infobox is listed ethnic Serbs figure (figure by the Austrian Statistical institute itself, as article says) not “Serbia-born people” who are less than half the number of ethnic Serbs (141,882 in 2023). Not to mention that you made up that source/N1 article says that “there are a lot more Serbs than represented figures”, which is false, there’s nothing like that in the article whatsoever, sorry but you made that up, plain and simple.

Thirdly, I never put that figure of 1.5 million Serbs abroad, thats another fabrication. Although, there are indeed around 1.6 million Serbs abroad (not counting large/significant portion of 200k “Yugoslav Americans”) with additional 1.5 million “in the Region”.

I really don’t get what are you trying to prove? That figures listed are false figures, incomplete, what else? That there are many countries not listed in the infobox that have large population of ethnic Serbs? Ok, but which ones, please tell us. In infobox are listed all the countries down to 1,000 Serbs-large populations. Do you have better, more reliable sources with as up-to-date figures as possible than those already listed? If so, please provide them, I guess everybody will be more than happy to accept them and improve the article in the process.

PS – One tiny piece of info for you. Do you know who edited that stable, long-standing version of total figure in the first place? That 10 million figure that you want back and now consider sancrosanct? It was me. Go check View History and look for date 16-9-2018. Regards, Klačko (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadko: I made the tweaks according to the TP discussion and incorporated most of your objections. What basically remains are potential improvements to the images and question whether there should be separate collages for writers and poets.

@Theonewithreason: As for your invoking WP:STABLE please be aware that WP:STABLE page itself makes it clear that a “long-standing” or “stable” version cannot be used as a basis for influencing editing decisions and should not be taken into consideration in content disputes. According to the page:

Restoring the article to a stable version is not required, nor is it encouraged by any policy or guideline.

Outside of the limited administrative context, a “stable version” or “status quo version” is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute.

Maintaining a stable version is, by itself, not a valid reason to revert or dispute edits, and should never be used as a justification to engage in edit warring.

Stable versions are not superior or preferred to disputed edits in any way.

Boldly making changes to articles is encouraged as a matter of policy, and obstructing good faith edits for the sake of preserving “stable” content or page revisions is a form of disruptive editing.

Editors involved in content disputes or edit wars should focus on resolving the dispute rather than preserving the stable version of a page

Editors who persistently attempt to enforce a stable version of a page may be blocked from editing without warning.

Regards, Klačko (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Klačko: you should be aware that discussions on tp should be exclusively regarding the subject, calling Serbs megalomaniacs and insulting other editors breaks every single rule of wp:civility so you can also be blocked for such behaviour, so those treats you are posting can easily go other way, as for your wp:calc there are numerous sources that are disagreeing with your estimation, I didnt revert your estimation since we last time discussed and you are still pinging me with treats okay then lets discuss your bold editing. Were those edits in actual good faith? You made a lots of changes in several articles, but somehow in several where you were contributing like the Serbs of Croatia article you barely made any positive improvements and this article really needs to be rewritten from scratch since there are lots of cited authors that dont have place on wikipedia some of which didn’t even passed wp:rsn, but are still there, so to be bold is not something what I would call what you are doing. Theonewithreason (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s focus on the work ahead, please.

I’m still in favor of 9-10 million in the infobox.

A quick recap:

1) All illustrations have been fixed and, in my opinion, significantly improved. It is boring and unencyclopedic to include multiple collages of notable people. I have carefully selected high-quality, valuable images. A number of articles about notable representatives of the nation are in poor condition, and we are not doing ourselves any favors by foregrounding them. Paja Jovanović is already linked in the History section. The work of Nadežda Petrović is featured in the Serbia article.

2) I have linked articles about the diaspora in the infobox, as seen on other articles.

3) I’ve added new and relevant information.

4) I have changed the titles of some paragraphs. “Notable people” is not a particularly encyclopedic heading, especially since several sections, such as Art and Literature, do not focus solely on individual achievements. I believe the new organization of sections works well. — Sadko (words are wind) 01:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadko:

1) “Notable people”/Sectioning: In my opinion, your arguments for restructuring the paragraphs are not well-grounded. First, what is the point of your claim that “Notable people” is not a particularly encyclopedic heading? What exactly do you mean by that? Second, your assertion that this is especially true since several sections, such as Art and Literature, do not focus solely on individual achievements does not hold up. In the Arts section, 13 out of 15 sentences are exclusively about individuals and their personal achievements (of the remaining two, one is a redundant introductory sentence, leaving essentially just one sentence out of 14 that is not individual-focused). In the Literature section, only 3 out of 12 sentences are not centered on individuals. In all the other sections (Cinema, Music, Philosophy, Science, and Sport), virtually every sentence concerns prominent individuals and their accomplishments. To put this in perspective: out of a total of 74 sentences across these sections, only 4 or 5 (depending on whether we exclude the redundant introductory sentence in Arts) are not focused on prominent individuals – that is 5% of the total content. When 95% of the text is devoted to prominent individuals and their achievements, it seems reasonable to reconsider grouping it under a “Notable people” section, subdivided by field (Arts, Literature, Music, Cinema, Science, Sports, etc.), as it was before your edit. This aspect of the article’s general organization and sectioning is far more consequential than issues like images or other minor details, on which we have spent considerably more time discussing. By contrast, we have barely touched on this structural question. I would therefore like to hear more detailed arguments from you on this point, particularly given that 95% of the content concerns individuals and their personal achievements. I already told you erlier that it seems to me that you may be missing a key distinction here: the purpose of this article is not to present the contributions of the nation (that is the role of the Serbia article), but rather to highlight the accomplishments of the Serb people through their most prominent individuals – achievements that can be personally attributed to the great men and women of this particular ethnic group.

2) Total population figure: I’ve written extensive, “War and Peace”-length arguments in this discussion about the 9 million figure, thoroughly addressing every possible angle, yet I’m not receiving any serious counter-arguments whatsoever as to why should we go with some higher figure. We can’t rely on gut feelings on this one. Let me remind you, as I did with @Theonewithreason, that I was the one who back in 2018 edited that 10 million figure that you are clinging to (replacing the previous dubious estimate of 12-13 million). Not to mention that throughout the entire period, there was a footnote in the infobox stating: total figure is the sum of all referenced populations. If we stick to that principle, the current total would be 8.5 million, or 8-9 million if you prefer a range. I rounded up to 9 million for reasons I’ve already explained in detail.

3) Images: As for the images, although I understand the potential need to reduce image congestion, I have some issues about your edits. I’m fine with keeping only Mokranjac in the Music section, and I could grudgingly accept removing the collage of poets. I am also ok with images that replaced collage in Arts section (although there’s no need for two images as it creates unnecessary clutter, one with Marina Abramović would be just fine). However, I believe removing the collage in the Cinema section represents a serious downgrade. That collage featured internationally recognized cinematic figures: two Hollywood stars (from different eras), one of the most acclaimed European directors of all time (at least in terms of awards), and one of the very few domestic actors with a significant international (European) career. It was replaced by a single photo of actors and actresses (leaving one of them unacknowledged, which is problematic in itself) most of whom, with the exception of Bata Živojinović, are virtually unknown outside the former Yugoslavia. Heck, if we retain a collage of notable athletes, why can’t we do the same for cinema?

4) Miscellaneous: I believe the image of the wolf in the Names section should not have been removed. It was an emblematic photo accompanied by a good explanation of animal’s connection to Serbs. Additionally, the sentence added to the Sports section is, in my opinion, irrelevant there and would fit better in a section on traditions (if it needs to be included at all). Rope-pulling and etc., while a proto-sports, don’t qualify as a sport in the modern sense and is more accurately described as a folklore-like tradition.

Regards, Klačko (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Serbs: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

Leave a Comment

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment