This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Croatia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia 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.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Serbia Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Ethnic groups Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-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.

	An image used in this article, File:Croatia2001 Serbs.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding Milorad Pupovac in the infobox. He is after all, the most notable Croatian Serb politician and president of Serbian National Council...--Wustenfuchs 18:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you recall Wustenfuchs, there was extensive discussion about the 12 people in the infobox only a few months ago - in which you took part. See the top of this page. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. But article abt Pupovac was made recently and it was not possible to have his image... It was just a suggestion.--Wustenfuchs 23:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Na. Recent period politician, none remarcable features... Isn´t maybe because of his open pro-Partisan public statements against Chetniks that he is suddently popular in Croatia? FkpCascais (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Wustenfuchs: You just got out of an indef ban by specifically agreeing not to fiddle with infoboxes. You starting topic about exactly that is not a move I would describe as smart. @Fkp: There is not a single group thinking of Chetniks in positive terms in Croatia, and that includes the Serbs. Also, Pupovac does not need to be popular among Croats simply because he is not elected by them - only Serbs are eligible to vote for the three designated parliament deputies of the Serbian minority. Timbouctou (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wustenfuchs claimed the revert with the following comment: "Erasing inacurate informations; sendwiched text are't good for the article. Nothing is disputed - sourced informations." Anzulovic is a Croat, and Wustenfuchs (as a Croat) possibly thinks that only his views should be present? I have not deleted any of his data, but added information and, as Wustenfuchs reverted the article, it is obvious that there should be a npov-section tag. The article should also use the 2001 census map showing Serbs by percentage (File:Croatia2001 Serbs.png vs File:Hrvatske etnije.gif).--Zoupan (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've made a lot of changes and added a number of sources, almost all of which are Serbian and you are here raising the issue of one Croatian author being cited. I'm not well versed in the middle ages period but looking at the diff I noticed you inserted the following sentence (among other things):

"Italian Alberto Fortis mentions the Morlachs in his 1774 work "Put po Dalmaciji"; he found that they sang beautiful verses of Serb epic poetry related to the Turkish occupation of Serbian Kosovo (Kosovo cycle)."

Your source for that claim is a page from the book partially available at Google Books, page 235 to be exact, which does not say that at all. Fortis indeed wrote a travelogue on his voyage around Dalmatia and he indeed mentions Morlachs, but what he recorded was Hasanaginica, a folk ballad which is set in Ottoman Bosnia and has nothing to do with Kosovo.

Also, what are your concerns specifically with the "Ottoman conquest and Austria-Hungary" section? Timbouctou (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My ethnicity is irrelevant. If Anzulovic is Croat that doesn't mean hist works are not correct or bunch of propaganda elements. What is important is that his work is writen in English so most of readers can acctualy read the source, besides, he is not the only source.

Second thing is that image of Granzers, caption of the image doesn't say those are Vlachs or Serbs, and I don't see the importance of the image. If you add images of Austrian granzers, then we can add those of soldiers of SAO Krajina, Yugoslav People's Army etc. And text is sendwiched, that is not good for the article. --Wustenfuchs 12:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed "inaccurate information", without consulting on the talk page, I jokingly made the notion that you wanted to have solely Croatian sources (as you are in fact, Croat, and this article is of importance to both Croatia and Serbs) regarding the important Ottoman/Austro-Hungarian era, as you discarded my additions, and you must admit that Anzulovic isn't quite neutral (just note his title: "Heavenly Serbia: from myth to genocide"). I did not delete any of your data, but added both Serbian and English sources. The Grenzer-picture is a good image for the article as it is crucial to the history of Serbs in the region (remember that the military frontiers were inhabited by both Serbs and Croats), and I am really laughing at your comparison to "SAO Krajina and JNA" - what does that have to do with the Grenzers? Can you explain sendwiched..? I'm fixing refs, and restoring the demographic image once again, and im awaiting your further philosophy on the grenzer picture.--Zoupan (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wustenfuch by "sendwiched" means something he was told at time he was working to improve some other article, and that is partially explained at WP:MOS (I can´t really find it, but here mentions a bit: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(layout)#Images). Well, it basically has to do with images being evenly distributed throu the article, and that the text shouldn´t be "sendwiched" in between 2 or more images... It says somewhere that one image on each side with text in middle should be avoided, just as situations of few lines in between pics... If I remember well, that was one of the many conditions for having a GA article status. FkpCascais (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx FkpCascais, that was my point.

Now, second thing, you add in infobox only the current status of Serbs, not the one from 1991. So their total number in Croatia is (per 2001 census) 201,631. Ofc, in article it is needed to write their demographic history. Fall from 12% to 4% is important to every ethnic group. I have nothing against demographic map, even though it would be better that image is better placed. This is a mess.

This part of the article:

"On 12 September 1683, a relieving force under Polish King Jan III Sobieski surprised and defeated the Turkish army at the Battle of Kahlenberg, thereby ending the second Siege of Vienna. Prince Eugene of Savoy's impressive victory at the Battle of Zenta, 11 September 1697, marked the turning point in the Austrian struggle against the Turks. Following the Treaty of Karlowitz, 26 January 1699, Karlovac, Varaždin, and Banat general commands of the Military Border were created. During the reign of Emperor Leopold I. The Slavonian border was established by Luigi Ferdinando Conte de Marsigli in 1702, from lands along the Sava, Theis, and Maros rivers, which were largely incorporated into Kingdom of Slavonia in 1747."

Has nothing to do with Serbs of Croatia.

"a Venetian Croat ethnographer from Sinj that wrote Observations on 'Travels in Dalmatia' of Abbot Alberto Fortis, said that the Morlachs were Slavs who spoke better Slavic than the Ragusians (owing to the growing Italianization of the Dalmatian coast).[32] Lovrić claimed the ethnonym "Morlaci" was derived from the word more (sea) and laci meaning "strong", and he made no distinction between the Vlachs/Morlachs and the Dalmatians and Montenegrins that were also mentioned (peoples of Croatia and Slavonia were not mentioned), he was not at all bothered by the fact that the Morlachs were predominantly Orthodox Christian."

This part is just inaccurate because word Morlach is from Italian meaning black Vlach, so... you can't have lies in article. That's it for now. --Wustenfuchs 17:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also need to mention inaccurate claim that Vlach was common name for Serbs in Ottoman Empire. It's not correct.

Other issues are: "Serbs that took refuge in the Habsburg Krajina, were called "Vlachs" by Croats". Not really, maybe they called them Vlachs 'cause they were Vlachs. Mužić wrote that years earlier Croats acctualy knew the difference between Srbs (Srblje) and Vlachs.

Another inaccurate claim: "In the work "About the Vlachs" from 1806, Metropolitan Stevan Stratimirović states that Roman Catholics from Croatia and Slavonia scornfully used the name 'Vlach' for "the Slovenians (Slavs) and Serbs, who are of our, Eastern confession (Orthodoxy)", and that "the Turks in Bosnia and Serbia also call every Bosnian or Serbian Christian a Vlach (T. Đorđević, 1984:110)"

"That the name 'Vlach' used to signify the Serbs is testified by Vuk Karadžić as well, in the "Serbian Dictionary" itself, under the word 'Vlach', the above mentioned assertion is confirmed, as well as in many other proverbs recorded by Vuk." - Karadžiž, really? What about Šešelj's sources? - --Wustenfuchs 10:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the... Wustenfuchs, am I reading this right? Are you deleting sourced info solely on the grounds that you believe it is inaccurate? It is not POV to mention what Serbian scholars wrote - as long as its sourced and you do mention they're Serbian scholars. Also if their position is opposed by other scholars list them as well, and it would be good to see what modern publications (from outside ex-Yu) have to say on the matter. Elaborate on the contradiction (if it exists), do not erase sourced text because of it.

Sigh.. no doubt this is yet another case of "Serbs say one thing, Croats another". From experience we know that this can be resolved in one of two ways: 1) if there is a discernible consensus in non-biased, non-local publications, we disregard the local dribble and use them; and 2) if noone out there gives a damn we mention both sides of the arguments (i.e. "Serbian scholars X, Y, and Z think they were Serbs, while Croatian scholars such as X, Z, and Y say they weren't").

P.S. Wustenfuchs. I did not read on this issue for years, but from what I can recall, the consensus out there is that "Vlachs" was indeed a term for Christian South Slavs, referring mainly (but not exclusively) to those of Orthodox faith. Indeed, if you're from Herzegovina, my grandfather e.g. would refer to you yourself as a "Vlaj" in the local Split dialect, regardless of your faith or nationality :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss, I'll start reverting the stuff. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK Direktor. One of the main arguments is that Austrians, and so Croats mention Vlachs of Croatia as Vlachs, in many documents, laws etc. Mužić also explained that Croats acctualy knew the difference between Serbs and Vlachs. I can't remember correctly at wich page, but it was some census, I'll add source for that if needed. Also Serbian Tsar Dušan Silni doesn't mix Serbs and Vlachs, he knew the difference, so it is very unlogical why Serbs or anyone other would call them (the Serbs) Vlachs? This theory that Vlach is just another name for Serbs comes only from Serbian sources, while other, foreign (not ex-yu) sources don't do that mistake. Ofcourse there were Serbs in Croatia during the Austria-Hungary and Austrian Empire, no doubt about it, but majority of Orthodox population of Croatia were Vlachs. As stated earlier, by foreign (I mean not ex-yu) writers, they were assimilated, so they spoke Croatian or Serbian i. e. South Slavic language (even in medieval age).

It's not problem for me to add two separate sections, like "Croatian view" and "Serbian view", but I find that very inappropriate for Wikipedia since only one truth exists, and we should fallow the one wich mentions Vlachs as Vlachs, that is historical documents of that time.

P. S.

I would not agree with you about that what Vlach means, like I said, people of that time knew the difference. And another thing, never noticed that Dalmatinians would call Herzegovinians Vlaj, not even the older ones, but you probably know more then I do. Reason for this could be because Vlachs moved from here to present-day Croatia. --Wustenfuchs 15:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we arrange persons in the infobox by their birth date ? Mm.srb (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was the goal from the beginning, please do if they aren't. --Wustenfuchs 15:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Wustenfuchs, Boduli i Vlaji i njihovi običaji, Svi Splićani su - vlaji i boduli, about Croatian vlajs. Also, you dismiss the fact that Serbs were called Vlachs, even if there is several sources. "Morlach is from Italian meaning black Vlach so... you can't have lies in article." - so you are the one deciding if a source is a "lie" or not, there exists several theories on the name. "Karadžiž, really? What about Šešelj's sources?" do you seriously don't know who Vuk is? he is not Radovan. Once and for all, we'll have to review the Vlachs-Orthodox versus Vlachs-Romanian-speakers theories.--Zoupan (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this article should be renamed to Croatian Serbs, since that is the most common form used in sources to refer to this ethnic group. -- Director (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not going to happen. Than you should suggest the same on Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina and such other articles. The fact that it's the most common form is not much of an argument. Mm.srb (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Direktor, take a look in the Category:Ethnic groups in Europe by country, as Mm.srb points out. Then compare "srbi u hrvatskoj" (Serbs of Croatia, 5,160,000 results) with "hrvatski srbi" (Croatian Serbs, 54,200 results). --Zoupan (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Mm.srb. Yes indeed. "Bosnian Serbs" is a faar more common term than "Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina". For the record, I don't appreciate you telling people what "is" and "isn't going to happen".

@Zoupan, I am not concerned with results in Serbo-Croatian. What I am concerned with is common usage in English-language sources. Wikipedia is not a source.

-- Director (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beggining of the very article we are talking about: "Serbs of Croatia (or Croatian Serbs) constitute the largest national minority in Croatia". So Direktor, would you say that Italian American is incorrect, too ? Zoupan gave some useful info. Anyway, there is no need to rename the article. Mm.srb (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed a need to rename this article, the Bosnian Serbs article, and the Bosnian Croats article to their proper names per WP:COMMONNAME. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Mm.srb. I don't follow your logic at all. "Italian American" is a different matter altogether, and anyway, its very much more similar to "Croatian Serbs" than "Italians of America". How could you possibly have surmised I would think "Italian American is incorrect"? But its not about what I "would say" is "correct", what is correct is determined by WP:NAME. -- Director (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's amusing to hear the adjective "proper" used in reference to WP:COMMONNAME. This policy does not determine what is "proper", it explains how common names are used because they're recognizable and natural, which makes them suitable according to the actual WP:NAMINGCRITERIA.

In any event, the phrase "Croatian Serbs" could actually be considered problematic in terms of consistency because it is slightly confusing to readers who don't realize that "Serbs" in this context indicates an ethnicity rather than a nationality, making them think that the word order could be analogous to the one in "Italian Americans" - which would be incorrect. "Serbs of Croatia" seems like a sensible and unambiguous choice for the title, even if it isn't the most common. Indeed, it's possible that neither of those is the most common term - "Serbs in Croatia" could be more common, but it's so much more natural in sentences that it's hard to determine its actual popularity without a lot of search result analysis. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joy, there are very many articles that use the format "[adjective] [ethnicity]" without concern of being somehow confused with the meaning of American minority article titles. -- Director (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google shows "About 880,000 results" for "Serbs in Croatia", "About 430,000 results" for "Serbs of Croatia", and "About 97,700 results" for "Croatian Serbs", and if we review the Serbo-Croatian use of the terms "srbi u hrvatskoj" 5,160,000 results with "hrvatski srbi" 54,200 results, "Serbs of/in Croatia" would still be the most used term. You can't compare to the American ethnic ancestries anyways, due to many facts. --Zoupan (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a few (representative) examples? I browsed Category:Ethnic groups in Europe by country a bit and couldn't find any in a dozen clicks... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marked as such. Regarding the unsourced entries, please note that it would be absolutely fair game to remove all living people from the list, on the spot. GregorB (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to make a new section abot "Notable individuals", but we have one alredy. The reason why I wanted to make a new section is this:

We don't even need this section. Their notability is questionable, some are more notable, others are not, or some are more notable then those listed. My proposal is that we remove this section because we alredy have . Also, in the infobox I believe we have enough notable persons shown in the article. --Wustenfuchs 11:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]