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

Croatia 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Serbia 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4

As an aside, why have the Serbian coat of arms on top? The Croats, the Rusyns, and the Serbs articles both have images up top and symbols elsewhere. It seems inconsistent. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works like an infection. One editor, sees how similar pages are developed and copies it. The idea behind coat of arms is that is a design "belonging to a particular group of people". Coat of arms is part of a "Ethnic Group" template, so it is supposed to be there. I hope that other ethnic group pages copy this example.Mike Babic (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, right now, I'm looking at the Serbs in Dubrovnik, Serbs in Kosovo, Serbs in Montenegro, Serbs in Mostar, Serbs in Sarajevo, Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Serbs in Slovenia articles. None of them have the coat of arms on top. A lot have the Serbs template (doesn't Croatia belong there?) up top so would you live with that? I'm not in the mood of "let's try something new and see if others will follow", especially when I personally think it is just better without the coat of arms. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems that fly-by editors aren't interested in compromising. Mike, are you willing to compromise and let me get a third opinion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, are you willing to discuss this or are you sticking with your "I want this way so that others will follow" view? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, the history section doesn't need a disclaimer. Second, it's way too long and is just on the general history of Croatia, mostly without sources. That's the reason for the need for a disclaimer. For example, what does anything in the Late Middle Ages section have to do with the Serbian people? It's nice to know about the king and his son and the churches, but it goes just way off topic and isn't related. The article would be better served by focusing on what's unique about Serbians in Croatia, versus say other Serbs. History should be pared down and the tensions part could be expanded, with sources of course. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea Ricky! after reading the history section again I must agree. The section goes ways off topic and is too general.Mike Babic (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I removed the reference to "Serbs were disproportionately represented in the Croatian and Yugoslav military and law enforcement (60% of the army officer corps" using [1] as the source. The section is discussing the military frontier during I guess the 1880s. However, the NY Times article is talking about that ratio in 1991, so it's not useful in that way. Perhaps it's accurate but that's an absurd use of source material. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Sava Mrkalj because the source cited [2] is a tripod website which doesn't pass our reliable sources standard. Because tripod is a free website hosting site, this is a self-published source and is not reliable enough, especially considering that we are discussing ethnicity like this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I removed Nikola Borojević because its source [3] is another self-published source. Also, because it's a commercial seller of books, that makes it look more skeptical. Also, since there is no article on Borojević (no opinion on his notability, he may deserve one but someone needs to make it), he doesn't seem that notable to even be included. We have to have some standards or that section could easily explode out of control. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Medo Pucić because its source [4] is a self-published source. Those kinds of sources are not considered reliable enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Đuro Daničić because its source [5] (myserbia.net) is a self-published source and probably isn't reliable enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remove Simo Matavulj because its source [6] (myserbia.net) is a self-published source and probably isn't reliable enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ivo Andrić was of ethnic Croat origin, and proclaimed himself a Yugoslav by nationality. He is considered a Serbian author of Croatian ethnicity, but he is not a Croatian Serb. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, wasn't he born in the Bosnia and Herzegovina region? So he wasn't part of Croatia at all? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The man is an ethnic Bosnian Croat that wrote mostly in Serbian (in his youth he wrote in Croatian) and later declared himself a Yugoslav. In modern post-war terms he may be "classified" as a Serbian Croat from Bosnia, rather than a Croatian Serb. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Končar considered himself a Yugoslav by nationality. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, the source provided ([7]) first is self-published and second, doesn't even describe him as Serbian. Oh, this is going to be fun. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desnica is of half-Croatian half-Serbian ethnicity, and was a Croatian writer (which basically means he wrote in Latin script :P ) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the ones mentioned above, the following individuals do not have a reliable ref that confirms their ethnicity as Serbs.

• Omer Paša Latas, considered himself Turkish and was a Muslim.
• Josip Pančić, an ethnic Croat.
• Petar Preradović. The reference merely suggests that the surname "Preradović" is Serbian, though that is a quite doubtful claim.
• Antun Fabris. Highly doubtful, the source is meaningless.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should 'considering self' be the sole argument?

• • Omer-pasa Latas didn't consider himself anyway, thats not the age of nationalism, he was an Orthodox Serb, who under devsirm became a Muslim, just like Bosnian Serb Mehmed-pasa Sokolovic, no reason to remove him.
  • Josif Pančić converted to Serbian Orthodoxy when he came to Belgrade and assimilated, I'm not going to go into his personal family origins not realy nown.
  • OK, will look further.
  • How can it be "hardly doubtful"? You seem to be more sort of opposing the addition of any Serb-Catholic. Please do not remove Fabris.