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

Croatia High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance 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.

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]

Somebody (not Mike Babic) must create picture similar to that in article Serbian American and then everybody will be happy. Other possible solution is possible to see in article Afghans in Britain. Adding only Serbian (without Croatia) or "Krajina" coat of arms in table is clear POV pushing and edit against wikipedia editorial style in similar articles--Rjecina (talk) 03:23, 3 October 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ListTraveller (talk • contribs) 15:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists. If you want to, you can make the same arguments there. I would rather something have some semblance of control. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 am not using his article. There isn't a reliable source about him and I was just pointing out that he wasn't even born in the country, in case you weren't aware. If there was a source, I would be arguing for his insertion. The article doesn't mention anything beyond he died in Croatia, so is that really enough in your mind to claim he was a Serbian "of Croatia"? I am trying to get some semblance of a legitimate list, following a fairly specific (and I think reasonable and neutral) criteria: the person has to be Serbian and the person has to from Croatia. Simply having died there (especially when he is born and grew up in two other countries) doesn't do much other than water down the list to make a huge mess of just random individuals. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:13, 1 October 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]

I don't read the language. There is an article with unsourced material and a biography in Serbian. I apologize but you have been adding a ton of names in a very short period of time, with articles that don't mention their background, broken links, etc. The only ones I have even managed to review are those in English. I left the foreign language ones for someone else to review. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:16, 1 October 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]

Look, when you include numerous citations in an article about Serbian in Croatia that don't mention the people are Serbian or that they are from Croatia, it makes it extremely difficult to understand what you are doing. It seems very strange that someone knows enough of the wiki markup to use ref tags can suddenly come in here with a ton of names to be added and upon further review, very few are even on their face accurate (and from the looks of it, is leaving just as quickly). I've seen enough of the history of this article to know when odd is going on. What you consider "historical" is completely arbitrary and I am following the manual of style, where a alphabetical ordering is preferred. Are you telling me that you find it more logical to put names of people in order by date of birth over alphabetical? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:23, 1 October 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?

Any person, who is of Serbian blood, Serbian race, that is born on territory of modern day Croatia, and is prominant, is allowed to be added to the list.Mike Babic (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Serbian blood, nor Serbian race, there's only Serbian ethnicity. Zenanarh (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this part of discussion with consensus ?

My question is:

Prominent Serbs of Croatia (in this article) are persons with Serbian parentage (example:Svetozar Borojević von Bojna) or self-declared Serbs (example:Josif Pančić) ?--Rjecina (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one says we can't have both. Perhaps self-declared ones should be listed with that caveat. I'd rather focus on those who have Serbian parentage and "grew up Serbian" so to speak, but whatever the consensus feels like. I was hoping for an article more focused on a distinct Serbian in Croatia culture, but that doesn't seem to be the focus. Frankly, I would rather we get more focused on the unique issues affecting Serbians in Croatia and waste less time on who does and does not count on the list. Then again, I've always had an odd focus when it comes to article writing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my thinking this list is too long, but similar situation is with other similar Balkan nationalistic lists....--Rjecina (talk) 05:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

DIREKTOR, is it just me or does this article (and a whole lot of similar ones in this region) seem to attract a lot of "new" users who all seem to have very good knowledge of wiki markup, have a strong POV to push, and then leave in a huff when challenged? I'm seeing pattern after pattern of this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than likely we're dealing with another clump of socks... Though I'm not involved with the article sufficiently to have an idea about a possible puppet master. I can't think of any suspects, except maybe User:PaxEquilibrium. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR the comments that are posted from your account seemed to repel new editors. Please be more kind and courteous to new members. Wikipedia has been built on the basis that there is people, with various views contribute together.Mike Babic (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, no I do not think I was discourteous. Rather I believe I made it clear that discussion and sources are the proper way to edit articles, while trying to prevent edit-warring. I also do not appreciate the notion that I am not familiar with basic Wikipedia principles. It is quite likely that these "new editors" are socks, I recommend a checkuser. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just feel that new users should have some wiggle room before we start flaming on them. Every user can add something to the article. Mike Babic (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but Mike, you have to admit that a user who's first edits are to this specific article (it's not exactly found on the main page), adding in sources to a section that was just removed for last of sources (using ref tags along with the external links markup), a lot in the order that the information was there before, and then seeing that numerous sources that are just plain incorrect is suspicious. I really don't care about new or not but I do get annoyed that this article seems to have a lot of "new" editors who fly in, do a bunch of edits and then vanish off. If someone wants to edit here, they should at least stick with one username and discuss things like an adult. This constant barrage of random new people makes it impossible to form consensus anywhere, and is just a way for people to do fly-by POV pushing. I almost agree on a checkuser but it feels too much like fishing at this point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm going to refute the removal of the "ethnic group" template. Serbs of Croatia are clearly an "ethnic group". An ethnic group template is used to highlight some statistics of a race of people. Just look at the ethnic template of other ethnic groups such as the Germans, Chinese, Serbs, Russians, Iranian, Japanese, Americans, Canadians. They all have ethnic template.Mike Babic (talk) 08:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Mike have a look at Serbs of Bosnia, Serbs in Montenegro, Serbs in Vojvodina, Serbs in Canada, Serbs in the Republic of Macedonia, etc... Serbs are an ethnic group, this is just a subdivision and an article about a minority. Also, there is no need to place the Coat of Arms of the Republic of Serbia in the ethnic group infobox. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Serbs" template has a link to the ethnic group article, which is using the "Infobox Ethnic group" template. The "serbs" template is a template linking together all ethnic subgroups in different countries, so it would be the most correct template for this article. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you want me to take a look at Serbs of Bosnia, Serbs in Montenegro, Serbs in Vojvodina, Serbs in Canada, Serbs in the Republic of Macedonia????????? Hmmmmmmmm. Russians in Australia, Russians in Ukraine, Russians in China, Croatian British all have ethnic templates. I'm all for compromise and such. but I'm also for developing and improving the article. to answer your questions Enric, the ethnic box adds valuable information. 1. It clearly shows where Serbs in Croatia diaspora has setteled (this is not present in the Serbs template). 2. it shows the total population of Serbs from Croatian. these two points differentiate "the 'serbs' template", from the ethnic template. I hope that you guys can see why the two are different.to refute Direktor, I'm just going to say that just because other articles are undeveloped...... doesn't mean that this article has to be. hmmm, why are you arguing against this template? Also, to justify the coat of arms, and the notable suggestion that coat of arms of Serbia is not appropriate, i have changed the coat of arms to the Krajina coat of arms in the template.Mike Babic (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What those articles have is a navigational template at the bottom, a flat horizontal template like Template:Ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina. That sort of templates go at the bottom of articles, while infoboxes go at the top of an article or at the top of the relevant section, if you want more information on templates you can look at the navbox guidelines and the MOS page on infoboxes. I just created Template:Ethnic groups in Croatia and added it to the bottom of the article. I re-ordered the templates to have both the ethnic group infobox and the Serbs template at the top. What do you think of it? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Krajina coat of arms has to do with Serbs of Croatia? Zenanarh (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, as I said before, I don't think the ethnic group is appropriate. However, I didn't like the coat of arms earlier and really am not a fan of it now. Why should this be the only article with a coat of arms on top? The other articles using the ethnic group template at least have images of people there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be perfectly frank: the Krajina coat of arms is offensive and cannot stay. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Mike, please don't use the "infection" logic again. Seriously, you should know that having a coat of arms is going to be controversial so at least be adult enough to understand and be sympathetic to that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YEAAA maybe offensive to the Ustase. Cite me, and explain to me, how it's offensive? The Coat of Arms is THE Coat of Arms of the Serbs IN CROATIA. This Coat of Arms is specifically used by Serbs from Croatia. Also, It is part of the template. Cite me a source? who finds it offensive? The Ustase might. NO, this isnt an article that is supposed to be nice to the people who are racist against the Serbs. This is an article about FACTS. Facts are, the coat of arms is part of the template and is specific to Serbs from Croatia. Offensive to the people who killed Serbs in Croatia. Hmmm i wonder if we should be sympathetic to these people or if we should consider them pathetic.Mike Babic (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CoA is that of an illegal and genocidal Serb rebel state. It would be something like using the Kosovo or Albanian flag for the Albanian minority in Serbia. The Serbian minority in Croatia does not have official symbols. If it does, please list them. And please, stop immediately with the "Ustaše" nonsense. More than a few people would report you for suggesting that they are "Ustaše" or "Nazis". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I don't care about your personal views. The Coat of Arms isn't used ANYWHERE. Period. If it gets put back, I'm seriously considering removing it and blocking anyone who pushes for its inclusion. Mike, I am not going to cite a single source. Assume good faith and act more civil. I have no clue of the history of this conflict but I know better than to add certain things that are just irrelevant. What in the world does a coat of arms have to do with an article on the people who lived in a region anyway? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forget that. I'm putting my foot down. I already warned User talk:130.113.186.173 but to all the sock and meat puppets who are clearly reading this talk page: if one more person (IP, new user, whatever) adds the coat of arms, that article is getting protected and there will be a lot more cut out. If you want to actually contribute, ask like a grownup and discuss things on the talk page. Otherwise, the games stop now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the entire Language section hasn't a single citation. Second, the two dialect maps provided consist of (1) 404 error and (2) a free webhost that could literally be anyone's map at all. I suggest removing the entire section at original research until we find some sources. The Erdut Agreement sentence could just go somewhere in the history section. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map is a Greater-Serbian propagandist interpretation of the "dialects" of the Serbian language. According to this map, the Serbian language is spoken in nearly all of Croatia, strangely in accordance with the Greater-Serbian ideas of where the Serbian borders should be. Compare the supposed extent of the Serbian language in Croatia and Bosnia with the map of Greater Serbia. The interpretation is obviously that all Shtokavian language forms are in fact Serbian. Not only is the map unsourced and unreliable, it is also ourageously provocative and blatantly incorrect. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It frankly doesn't matter to me what it is. I just want a reliable source per policy. It could 100% accurate for all I care (and given what I know about the region, it may as well be). I just wanted to wait for a little while before removing the entire section. Thanks anyways DIREKTOR, but I hope you understand why I'd rather avoid the "propagandist" arguments. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'm just shocked to find this kind of nonsense on Wikipedia. There can be no controversy as to whether or not this map supports the notion that nearly all Croats speak in Serbian, which is, of course, unacceptable on any modern encyclopedia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I was tired enough of the nonsense on that page. I removed the entire language section. As for the maps removed: (1) there is no mention of SR Croatia anywhere in the history and someone put in a sourced history statement first before adding maps everywhere (especially given the track record); (2) I have no clue what the rebel territories of Republic of Serbian Krajina have do with anything and don't really care about arguments right now (I'm guessing it belongs in the history somewhere and may be relevant but probably not); and for (3), this is an article about the Serbians people in Croatia, not Operation Storm and the military, let alone the regular history, of Croatia. Is it so hard to have a single picture of a person in this article? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Croatian language to info box, probably the most of Serbs in Croatian cities speak Croatian language and use local dialect or slang, not Serbian. Zenanarh (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla is a Croatian Serb, we could add his pic? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he is a Serb from Croatia. What is your opinion?Mike Babic (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should an new section for possible images. Tesla, Stojaković, and Stojčević seem like a good start. I want to archive this section and keep the talk page from getting too long. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Svetozar Boroević von Bojna wasn't a Serb. Yes, he was orthodox but that doesn't make him a Serb, in fact in his many letters he mentions his Croatian nationality and patriotism. Petar Preradović like I said before is only a half-Serb (father Croat, mother Serb) and that book that you have put as a source can not be a reliable source since it doesn't deal with Preradović and it only mentions him being a Serb in one sentence which was probably not investigated firmly. That prince Bjelina that you have said has been a ban of Slavonia is total bullshit, that source rastko.yu can not be considered as a reliable source.Crabath (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH Feral Tribune is a source on Svetozar Boroević. Feral Tribune are a newspaper that spit on everything that is Croatian (them and Novi List from Istria), everyone know they are a left-wing newspapers so counting them as a reliable source is a insult to wikipedia. So here I'm saying again that Svetozar Boroević has declared as a Croat, I can find two reliable sources on him being a Croat.Crabath (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, you're the one that "spit on everything" that is Wikipedian. Discuss and provide sources. Edit after consensus. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Crabath, you would be a lot more effective if you pointed out a problem with that source List gave, other than you don't like the newspaper. I'm sure there are a lot of problems (see the above sections), but do this honestly and fairly. We are all assuming good faith with List's sources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Petar preradović try this source http://books.google.com/books?id=l-UtAAAAMAAJ&q=Petar+Preradovic+Croat&dq=Petar+Preradovic+Croat&pgis=1

And when it comes to Svetozar Boroević try these sources:
http://www.austro-hungarian-army.co.uk/biog/boroevic.htm
http://www.arhiv.hr/hr/izlozbe/download/KATALOG_BOROEVIC.pdf

Hope you like it.Crabath (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since my sources about Svetozar Boroević are more reliable (page that deals with the austro-hungarian army) and a pdf document in which you can find letters in which he declares as a Croat please remove him from your list.Crabath (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borojević appears to have been a declared Croat and a Catholic for most of his life. He should be removed from the list in my opinion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm glad that we agree on this. About Petar Preradović, he can stay on the list just put in an note that he's a Serb on his mother side.Crabath (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting-wise, I think it would be helpful if everyone tries to keep a separate section for each individual. That'll make archiving and later arguments much easier to deal with. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a Great Idea!Mike Babic (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Sava Bjelanović because the sourced provided, [14], is a self-published source. No actual opinion on the accuracy, just that the sources isn't accurate enough per WP:RS. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Stefan Knežević because its source, [15], is self-published. Also, I'm concerned that the subject is notable enough to even be included. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Simeon Končarević because its source, [16], is self-published. Also, I'm concerned that the subject is notable enough to even be included. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Omer-pasa (Mihailo) Latas because its source, [17], is self-published. Also, I'm concerned that the subject is notable enough to even be included. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Nikodim Milaš because its source, [18], is self-published. Also, I'm concerned that the subject is notable enough to even be included. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with this section is wrong timeline. First in 1991 we are having beginning of Yugoslav Wars and only then Serbs are escaping Bilogora and northwestern Slavonia (if this statement is true). Then in 1995 Serbs on order of Serbian Krajina government are escaping western Slavonia, Banija, Kordun, eastern Lika and northern Dalmatian Zagora (we are having source for that).--Rjecina (talk) 11:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm mistaken, if we are going to include the ethnic groups infobox (which I still disagree with), at the very least, the template is about Serbs in Croatia, so including flags of other countries (either in the region like DIREKTOR had or worldwide like Mike had) seems improper to me. That would seem more appropriate for the complete Serbs article. I think it would be only appropriate to include regions in Croatia where there is a significant Serbia population. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new.. Change the lable of it to Diaspora and you got good quality information.130.113.128.11 (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you want to change the name of the article to "Serbs in Croatia" please do so because I agree. On the other hand, the article right now it's called Serbs of Croatia.Mike Babic (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks reasonable, as soon it's backed by sources saying that those countries really host serbs that have emigrated from Croatia. Try to find a source so you can add how many croatian serbs emigrated to each country, you can use estimates as soon as you remember to add "(estimate)" at its side. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petar Preradović should be removed because of the source, which is not reliable.

I have got an another source on him being a Croat which is also from books.google. http://books.google.com/books?id=l-UtAAAAMAAJ&q=Petar+Preradovic+Croat&dq=Petar+Preradovic+Croat&pgis=1

So I'll remove him until a proper source is found.Crabath (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Serbian national amnesia made the editor of this article forget to mention 4 years of terror against Croats and other non-Serbs from 1991 'till Operation Storm in August of 1995.Every article about Serbs somehow forgets to mention that.Funny :) --(GriffinSB) (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know anything about that since i was 5 years old then. Just remember that we are here to build an article and not propaganda. Jovica Stanišić who was Milosevices "main guy", was a CIA spy and was taking orders from the CIA. The same guy who ordered the killings of Muslims in Trnovo and videotaped the "elite" military formation called Scorpions getting "blesses" in a Serbian church.Mike Babic (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of ethnic: "denoting origin by birth or descent rather than by present nationality". So, it seems that the criteria states that, people who are descendants of Serbs from Croatia are eligible to be added to the list.Serbian Defense Forces (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[19] So "Serbdom" is something genetically inherited nowadays? I removed everyone from the extended list of yours whose own WP articles states they were Croats (Funny thing, it included some of the "political Serbs" like Budmani and Rešatar). We are not here to "think" but to provide verifiable sources, so please do before indulging into further creative activities. Thanks. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand your argument, please clarify. Ethnicity is in fact something that is inherited according to the definition of ethnicity stated above. Those people that you have removed did in fact all have at least 1 Serbian parent. I also dont understand the point you are trying to make in the brackets, where you start by saying "funny thing".Serbian Defense Forces (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old problem about this question is: We will write person of Serbian descent or self-proclaimed Serbs ?

For example Josif Pančić is self-declared Serb and Svetozar Boroević von Bojna is self-declared Croat. Only 1 of this 2 can be here !--Rjecina (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The ethnicity is established primarily on the basis of 1) person's self-declaration 2) the cultural milieu they operated in (language, religion, place of work etc.). It's ridiculous to see Preradović (one of the important figures of Croatian National Revival) to be listed as "Serb of Croatia". WP must not draw conclusions on its own, but simply reflect the general classification of the individuals established in the literature. There is some grey space though for some of the individuals with mixed parentage who balanced on the bordering edge of Serbdom and Croatdom ("Yugoslavs"), but these should be, if added to the list, explicitly marked in the footnotes, as well as those for whose the appropriation on either side cannot be decided by means of "majority of sources" methods. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]