Talk:Serbs of Croatia/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

File:Croatia2001 Serbs.png Nominated for Deletion

	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)

Milorad Pupovac

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

Title

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Revert by User:Wustenfuchs

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

@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)

Content and citation delete

On 17 November 2012 @ 22:57 ip user User:94.253.150.225 deleted the following content and citation from the article:

http://facta.junis.ni.ac.rs/pas/pas2003/pas2003-02.pdf pp. 717-730]</ref> A letter of Emperor Ferdinand, sent on November 6, 1538, to Croatian ban Petar Keglević, in which he wrote "Captains and dukes of the Rasians, or the Serbs, or the Vlachs, who usually call themselves the Serbs".<ref name=Gavrilovic/>

The edit summary was {{(No Serbian nationalist reference, please. Thank you)}} Please address this issue. In addition a cite error was created by the delete. I did not wish to revert for fear of being controversial.EagerToddler39 (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"Notable individuals" section needs references

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)

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 Category:Serbs of Croatia. Also, in the infobox I believe we have enough notable persons shown in the article. --Wustenfuchs 11:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the list as an idea. Regarding the notability, WP:LISTPEOPLE applies.

BTW, I was just strongly tempted once again to summarily remove all unsourced entries on living people. GregorB (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

GregorB is right. No reason not to have the list per se, provided that all entries are sourced and that there are no red-linked names in it. The list currently contains 47 unsourced names and 15 sourced ones, i.e. at least two thirds of it could be deleted on the spot per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Timbouctou (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sigh... The article is messy, although it is actually fairly solid content-wise. (Its counterpart in the Croatian Wikipedia is abysmal. No use of pointing that out - they don't care. And no use of trying to fix it - they won't allow it. Business as usual.) Anyway, I'll put some more cleanup into it.

BTW, wouldn't it be more natural for the History section to come first? GregorB (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there are some obvious issues with article organisation. The "Culture" section serves no purpose other than offering a link to Serbian culture. It should be scrapped and the wikilink could be moved to "See also" section. The entire "Serbs in modern Croatia" section should be under the "History" heading, and "Demographics" should follow History, not the other way round. Demographics section should contain more (sourced) prose and less lists with numbers, I see no point in enumerating every single municipality with 10% Serb population. Timbouctou (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the list now contains 76 names (it got bloated by 50% in the last four months), and of those, only 15 are referenced. And anons keep adding red-linked sportspeople en masse. Is there some limit to this per guidelines or can we expect the list to become something of a phone book listing? Timbouctou (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Siniša Mihajlović

Why isnt Siniša Mihajlović in the pictures???? He is currently the most known Serb from Croatia probably... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Правичност (talk • contribs) 19:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla

Nikola Tesla should be removed from this list. He doesn't have any connection to Croatia. He was born in Military frontier of the Austrian Empire where he lived. That Military frontier had become Croatia in 1881., and that was after Tesla no longer lived there. For further info, see the discussions Here and Here Asdisis (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't agree for making such actions in such a short time, it needs further discussions, and where all the assurance that some editors opinion is more valuable than the academic built over a century, written in National enyclopedias? Saying Tesla had no connection to Croatia, or making it very minimal, can't be accepted without doubts in some suspicious intentions to lose his connection with Croatia and through his national identity bring Tesla closer to Serbia, something was happening and continued to be done from Yugoslavian time, yet he had nothing to do with that country, even by his national identity. Of course, historically speaking the sentence "Nikola Tesla was born on 10 July (O.S. 28 June) 1856 to Serbian parents in the village of Smiljan, Austrian Empire" is true, but avoding mentioning Croatia is more bad than good. Smiljan, Lika, and the Military Frontier, were on the territory of the Croatian Kingdom, and as such Military Frontier politically, geographically, culturally and socially belonged to the Croatian historical sphere. That's why people in that area have identified themselves with Croatia, and why Tesla said "I am equally proud of my Serbian origin and my Croatian fatherland".--Crovata (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That's why i started this discussion. I references high quality discussions that already reached certain conclusions. Tesla had no connection to Croatia. That was directly established by referenced discussions. I strongly supported the opposite stand, as you can see in the discussions. Military frontier was not on the territory of Croatian Kingdom, but was a separate entity. It became Croatian territory in 1881., a long time after Tesla lived there. If you read the discussions, all that you said I also advocated. The discussion went to ANI. Please read the referenced discussions. For the last 30 days discussions were open, so I wouldn't call this a hasty decision. I'm prepared to discuss another 30 days and go to another ANI if necessary. Also I would like to note that its hard to edit anything regarding Tesla since different articles were transformed to Serbian/Croatian strongholds. Asdisis (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

If you believe in the well being of your intention, then I support whatever the outcome, but also believe there's more important articles and issues to work on, like this one (Serbs of Croatia), for which I don't have enough expertise and sources to edit alone.

Would note "generalization" on that period of history. Geographically, Smiljan was closer to Velebit, which means quiet within Lika territory than to the Eastern border of the Croatian Military Frontier with Bosnia, and it wasn't called "Croatian" without cause because that was the original territory of Croatian Kingdom since the establishing of the principaliy/kingdom in the 9th or 10th century until the Ottoman invasion. Then it was for a century and half under Ottoman control, and Croatian Kingdom was without Western Bosnia territory and separated in four different areas (from original territory; Dalmatia, Croatian Military Frontier, Croatia, Slavonian Military Frontier). With peace agreements in late 17th and early 18th the current border between Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina was established, while Lika was returned under Austrian control, but wasn't reunited with then small Croatian Kingdom centered around city of Zagreb, but to the Croatian Military Frontier, which as we know, wasn't disestablished until 1881. The Military Frontier was controlled by Austrian administration, but it wasn't political, geographical, cultural and social spehere of Vienna, but of Croatia.

There's no harm of "(modern-day Croatia)" being included, and if we're simplifying history and reducing Tesla connection with Croatia, actually of Croatia with Croatian Military Frontier, Slavonian Military Frontier, and Dalmatia, because they weren't simply "Croatia" by someone's standard, then as well Zaharije Orfelin (b. 1726, Vukovar, Slavonian Military Frontier), Josip Runjanin (b. 1821, Vinkovci, Slavonian Military Frontier), Patriarch Josif Rajačić (b. 1785, Brinje in Lika, Croatian Military Frontier), Simo Matavulj (b. 1852, Šibenik, Dalmatia), Petar Preradović (b. 1818, Grabovnica, Slavonian Military Frontier), Svetozar Pribićević (b. 1875, Kostajnica, Croatian Military Frontier), Milutin Milanković (b. 1879, Dalj, Slavonian Military Frontier), and many others, can't be considered Serbs of Croatia. Then what you consider "Croatia"? What is the criteria to be considered Serb of Croatia and to be included in the list?

Then I would advise you, or anyone, to not discuss only the case of Tesla, but of all Serbs of Croatia who were born until 1881.--Crovata (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That is the outcome of the referenced discussions. I was maybe to harsh with the statement that this discussion will go to ANI. I started this discussion and referenced the other discussion which went to ANI and was resolved. Its conclusion is that Tesla had no connection to Croatia. Someone accused me that I was buldgeoning, so I will stay out of this discussion and leave for other editors to resolve it. I just started the discussion and pointed that the decision of ANI directly contradicts that Tesla had any connection to Croatia. I spent a good portion of the last month investigating sources and proving the opposite. Not a single person agreed with me. Not in the 4 discussions I started, RfC, nor ANI, although I thought I proved my point with numerous sources. Asdisis (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem at Tesla was never about Croatia, but rather about Asdinsis proposals. He basically insisted to add Croatia as Tesla´s birthplace instead of the Military Frontier. Another thing I see being mixed-up here is that Military Frontier was Croatian. It wasn´t... Parts became Croatian. FkpCascais (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You can't simply say "it wasn't Croatian", of course it wasn't Croatian Kingdom, but Military Frontier is part of Croatian history because it was previously it's territory, and on the re-counquested territory of Croatian Kingdom was established Croatian Military Frontier. In 1881 was returned to Croatia because Croatia had historical right on it. Neverthless, is with the discussion conclusions altered view or criteria to be Nikola Tesla, every other mentioned above, and other born before 1881, still considered and listed as Serbs of Croatia?--Crovata (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't say what would be the qualification for others. The referenced discussion concluded that Tesla was not born in Croatia. That means that anyone born in Military frontier was not born in Croatia. However they may have lived in Croatia and that may mean they could be called the Serbs of Croatia. Asdisis (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Asdisis, please don't try to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I won't have anything to do with this discussion. I just started it and left a reference to the decision of RfC and ANI regarding Tesla's birthplace. I do not see the reason not to spread that decision. It is done in good faith. The fact is that Tesla was not born in Croatia, not he lived in Croatia at any point in time. He had no connections to Croatia. The qualification that he was a Serb of Croatia should be reconsidered. Asdisis (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The decision that you link to is simply orthogonal to this. Those discussions are largely about the phrasing of a sentence that first mentions Croatia in the article. The conclusion that he's somehow completely disconnected from the Serbs of Croatia just because a sentence is phrased in a way that you don't personally like - is plain non sequitur. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The decision is that he was not born in Croatia. I think you also advocated that. If he was not born in Croatia, but a completely different entity, how is he then connected to Croatia? Asdisis (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he was not born in Croatia, because at time of his birt Smiljan was not part of K. of Croatia. However SMiljan was later incorporated into Croatia. So nowadays we consider Serbs from what is currently Croatia, Serbs of Croatia. What is so hard to understand? FkpCascais (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I just references the discussions which reached some conclusions. It's for the editors of this page to use them. Just to note that Military frontier was incorporated into Kingdom of Croatia in 1881. That was after Tesla lived there. I doubt that the qualification "Serbs of Croatia" is founded on the grounds you mentioned. However, if it is, I agree with you. I wouldn't want to participate in this discussion. I just referenced some discussions which reached a valuable conclusion. Please do not answer me or engage me in this discussion, since i won't participate or have any influence on the decision to the edit. Best regards.Asdisis (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of living people

For the umpteenth time: do not list living people here, implying their ethnicity or ethnic background, without reliable inline references. Note WP:BLP applies, and such entries may be summarily removed from the article. Which I'm going to do in 48 hours. GregorB (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, removed with this edit. Please feel free to reintroduce people that were removed, but only with a supporting reliable source in an inline ref. GregorB (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I see in the pictures we have two basketball players (Stojaković and Mačvan) and two other sportists (Mihajlović and Šekarić). Having in mind that 3 sportists would be fairly enough, I think two basket players is too much, and no doubts Stojaković is the one world-wide known. Would anyone oppose me changing Mačvan by Momčilo Bajagić? I cant beleave no one mentioned Bajaga before, he is well known musician. FkpCascais (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Preradovic and Pancic

I am surprised these two are on the list. First Preradovic was certainly of Serbian origin however he personally identified as a Croat and completely naturalized. So while I agree he should be mentioned he should not be featured on the infobox...Runjanin would be a much better example. As for Pancic he was the opposite case in relation to Preradovic...he was a Croat born in Croatia but moved to Serbia and naturalized, identifying as a Serb so he has nothing to do with this article in general. I am gonna leave this comment and see if someone is interested in a discussion of some sorts but if none I will proceed and make these changes accordingly. Shokatz (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide some sources first, and present them here on the talk page? Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The sources are present on their respective articles. Shokatz (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I support the removal of both.--Zoupan 21:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, present the sources here. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Preradović is of Serbian origins and there is no dispute. I really don't see what do you want to do? --Tuvixer (talk) 07:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read their respective articles, no need to repost something that is already present in those articles. As for Preradovic, yes he was of Serbian origin, however that is something totally different. Pancic for example was of Croatian origin but declared as a Serb. Unless you have a valid argument to keep both of these I will proceed and remove them. Shokatz (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, present the sources here. I can't find them in the articles so I am assuming that you are making that up. So you are the one who is deciding who is of Serbian origins or not??? You do not OWN this article, ok?

In your uneducated opinion, where would you put Pančić and Preradović? Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am making up that Preradovic is clearly noted as a Croatian poet and strictly as a Croatian (of Serbian origin) in his article. I am also making up that in the Life section of the Pancic article there it says he was born in Croatia of Croatian parents and moved to Serbia where he was naturalized as Serbian citizen. What the hell are you talking about? And who said anything about owning the article...besides you now? Let me put this the other way, do you have any sources these two were Serbs? I want to see them. Shokatz (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You want to change the article. It is up to you to prove your point. Again present the sources here. Tnx. Also where would you put Pančić and Preradović? Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually it's not. You want to have something in the article? Prove it belongs there. You cannot have one thing in the main articles (which are Preradovic and Pancic articles respectively) and then group them on a list which contradicts their main articles. Shokatz (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

How does it contradict? --Tuvixer (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I have to ask you this...are you serious or you are just trolling? Shokatz (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop dodging the question. --Tuvixer (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Read what I wrote already, read the respective aricles and stop trolling or I will report you. Shokatz (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop it already. I have replaced Preradović in the infobox with Nikodim Milaš, provisionally. Preradović is not to be removed from the list, nor does the fact that he is of ethnic Serb descent to be removed from his article (obviously), just to clarify. As for Pančić, he was Croatian Bunjevac and naturalized-assimilated Serbian.--Zoupan 23:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Why did you remove Preradović from the infobox? --Tuvixer (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the changes completely. Shokatz (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Can someone here make a valid argument or do you all think that you OWN the article. Show some good faith and revert your edits. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that the fact that Preradović converted to Catholicism (call it "de facto de-Serbianization"), lived in Austria and was an Austro-Hungarian general and member of the Illyrian movement shows that he had less to do with the heritage of Serbs of Croatia, and thus should not be included in the infobox, where more notable individuals of the community should be included.--Zoupan 17:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)