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]

Done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ListTraveller (talk • contribs) 14:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't "done" me. Provide a source and let's discuss it first. The burden is on people wanting to add content; it should not be my job to go again and again to determine whether things are done appropriately. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the source you wanted to add, [3], just describes Mrkalj's advocacy for an alphabet. Yes, the book is called "The Serbs" but that doesn't mean he is a Serb or even was from Croatia. Don't just grab anything that has the person's name and the word Serb a million miles away. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I removed Nikola Borojević because its source [4] 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]

Notable, just poor online sourcing, as with most matters. --ListTraveller (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your new source, [5], doesn't work. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a source, the problem is that it has to be taken into hands and opened. But OK, since you insist, here's a full online readible one.

BTW, when are you going to do the same thing for List of Croats?

I removed Medo Pucić because its source [6] is a self-published source. Those kinds of sources are not considered reliable enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ListTraveller (talk • contribs) 14:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[7] doesn't work. You are not batting a good average. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Đuro Daničić because its source [8] (myserbia.net) is a self-published source and probably isn't reliable enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

[9] does say he is Serbian. That's good. That doesn't mean he was born in Croatia. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the Daničić article says he was born in Novi Sad, in Serbia. There's also a mention of Bratislava, in Slovenia. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He contributed greatly to Croatian language and died in it (btw, why are you using his article now and not in Simo Matavulj's case?!?). If that's not enough, then remove it, but I think he should be mentioned in the article one way or another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ListTraveller (talk • contribs) 15:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remove Simo Matavulj because its source [10] (myserbia.net) is a self-published source and probably isn't reliable enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

[11] mentions he is Serbian and the section is about the former Yugoslavia's people but that doesn't mean HE was from the former Yugoslavia, let alone Croatia. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware you need also sources for actual births. You only need to click on his article. There is an extensive biography on his life linked to his article. OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ListTraveller (talk • contribs) 15:32, 30 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 ([12]) 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]

Sorry, my mistake.

Yes, and King Alexander Karageorgevic was too a Yugoslav, that still doesnt make him nonSerb.

Rade Koncar was one of the mane Serbs that contributed to Croatia, its strange to decapitate the article and remove him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ListTraveller (talk • contribs) 14:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A one-time monarch of Serbia is a different matter entirely. Even so, if he considered himself a Yugoslav by nationality, he should not be listed as anything else. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though he was Serb before Yugoslavia and there are sources for that? He considered himself a Yugoslav for some time, so what, so did Ivo Andric, Ante Trumbic, Josip Smodlaka, and countless others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ListTraveller (talk • contribs) 16:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what you think. When you put sources out there that don't even say what you are alleging what you are claiming, you lose all trust, at least with me; the source was half a page long, read it first. If I see one more dishonest source (or you aren't even reading these sources as you are using them), I will immediately wipe them all out and keep it clear until we have a reliable source for each one that identifies them. At least now I'm trusting that you are being honest with us. My patience with the numerous fly-by editors who seem to add information inaccurately is almost gone. Also, why did you go and destroy all my work sorting the names by just adding blocks and blocks of names? It makes it impossible to figure out what in the world you are doing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not relevant what I think, my sources are. "Dishonest source"? What on earth is this dishonest and you not trusting I am being honest? I think you are being at list a bit rude.

I am ordering them up in a historical manner. I cannot understand what you r doing on the other hand... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ListTraveller (talk • contribs) 15:30, 30 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]

And Nikola Tesla was an American, German and French scientist who wrote in Latin script. Most Serbs were actually of the Croatian society and famous Croatian writers, contributors, sportsmen, even a ruler. Reason to remove? None. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ListTraveller (talk • contribs) 14:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it, he's only half-Serbian and wrote in Croatian. He is considered a Croatian writer. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the point is to show how many Serbs contributed to the Croatian state. What are you for, to just put blatant Serb nationalists or those who were against their homeland? This is depriving the Serbs in Croatia all who were integrated in the Croatian society, even itsy bitsy, or brutal assimilation. He is also a Serbian writer (published in Belgrade and Sarajevo). —Preceding unsigned comment added by ListTraveller (talk • contribs) 14:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing Serbian about the guy is that one of his parents was a Serb. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that he wrote in Serbian (published in Belgrade), although obviously not as much as Croatian because of his place of life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ListTraveller (talk • contribs) 16:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the section is not "how many Serbs contributed" but a list of "ethnic Serbs were born in what is today's Croatia." If you want to add a list of Serbs who contributed, that's a separate point. Also, [13] is self-published (Direktor, it would be helpful to put the links used here). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Then remove Đuro Daničić. The Croatian Banness Jelena and Ban Bjeloš also weren't born in today's Croatia, but of their importance (Croatian rulers!), I think they should be in the article one way or another (so should Danicic I think). But then Vladan Desnica surely belongs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ListTraveller (talk • contribs) 15:27, 30 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ListTraveller (talk • contribs) 14:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Omer Paša Latas was an Ottoman nobleman. He was of Islamic faith, so he's closer to a "Muslim from Croatia" than a "Serb from Croatia". In either case I admit that may be a shaky point.
• Josip Pančić is a Serbian Croat, not a Croatian Serb. He is of Croat ethnicity, and cannot be included here.
• Look up Preradović...
• Fabris? Provide a real source and I'll concede the point. It would not be the first time Croats are proclaimed to be into "Catholic Serbs" so you can understand my skepticism.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, he was half of his life Orthodox, and then Moslem. What makes him more a Bosniac than a Serb? Anyway, he himself was in Serbia, worked as a teacher, considered himself a Serb and all sources describe him as Serb, that is vandalism removing him.

• JosiF Pančić converted to Orthodoxy and changed his name, i.e. assimilated into a Serb (much more than, Ivo Andrić).

• Looked up, http://books.google.com/books?id=d9IgAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Petar+Preradovic%22+Serb&dq=%22Petar+Preradovic%22+Serb&pgis=1

• There was a school of Serb-Catholics in the Dubrovnik, Bay of Kotor and those lands. Antun Fabris and others are mostly considered as traitors by the Croatian public. Antun Fabris ran Dubrovnik's "Serbian Matrix" (Matica Srpska), its a litle od you opose his adition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ListTraveller (talk • contribs) 14:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are using double standards. Disregard Moslems and Catholics no matter what (no matter what they were what they said or what sources say), but Orthodox 'Croat'(integrated) Serbs as well.

• Fine, Latas may stay.
• Pančić is a Serbian Croat not a Croatian Serb. What I mean is that he is of Croatian ethnicity and became a Serb later on. If Latas is an ethnic Serb then Pančić is an ethnic Croat. You are using double standards.
• Thank you, Preradović has been confirmed.
• I never heard of Fabris. All I'm interested in are sources.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not. I am including all people. I have nothing against adding all people to the List of Croats article, as I see that in there are people:

1) Those who are ethnic Croats

2) Thos who are just of ethnic Croat distant origins

3) Foreigners who came into contact with Croat life

4) Everyone who was ever born on the territory of the modern Republic of Croatia, regardless of faith, religion, ethnicity, sexual preference or other

• There seems to be a Wikipedia article on him, you have information there. I have also added a new source with more details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ListTraveller (talk • contribs) 16:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not interested in sources, this is not the site for you. Wikipedia puts verifiability above truth for a reason. The highest goal is for information that can be verified. It's insanely difficult at times for articles like this but it does provide some consistency. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What on erth ar you talking about, cant you see I look for sources?

Why was everyone from 1110 to 1850 removed? There were sources and no reason was given. I am returning them all now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ListTraveller (talk • contribs) 14:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will be reverted. Discuss and provide sources, do not edit-war. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see how things go around now. I sincerely apologize for ever even coming to the Wikipedia. Goodbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ListTraveller (talk • contribs) 15:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]