Talk:Serbs/infobox

Edit warring

• First off, all ethnic group related articles use a standard infobox (Infobox Ethnic group). Second, no "encyclopedic" information was removed during my edits, if (again) you bothered to even read the aritcle you would notice that there is a "Serbian communities and diaspora" table box located at the bottom of the page. Your recently reverted version is frankly, cluttered and ugly. Buttons (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not all, see Assyrians for example, and why should this be a norm? I suggest we remove the table box at the bottom and continue to have the 'community-link'. Instead of removing data, explain what you think is "ugly" and what you think we should do about it. --Jebacz (talk) 03:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Your "Community-link" list isn't even complete, its inconsistent and the articles that do exist are scarcely populated with any significant or useful amount of information. However I'm not suggesting that last fact is your fault in anyway. As I said before, it just clutters up the infobox. For things such as this, trying keeping it as simple as possible. The 'related ethnic groups' section is also debatable, so I sugggest only keeping 'South Slavs'. Buttons (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image

A discussion about the infobox picture is started at Talk:Serbs#Infobox image. Vanjagenije 10:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Total number of Serbs

I have written this on the talk page of the article Serbs [1] , as calculated (which can be seen there) the real number would be 10 350 000+. Adrian (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess c. 10.5 million is more simple and is the same as 10 350 000+. Pensionero (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I just calculated it to be sure what is the minimum number. Adrian (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The figures add up to ~10.3 so adding an extra 1.5 mil based on "Serbian Unity" and a Serbian newspaper (Blic) is POV.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Stating that the one prestigious media (Blic) is POV is a very strange statement. About the Serbian Unity I have responded in the next section. Please do not dismiss sources just because you think they are wrong. Try to substantiate this claims by some arguments before ignoring them. Adrian (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Alot of missinformed editors as i can see... Everybody is a "Math master" counting a few country datas from the infobox... why dont they ask themselves how many countries are there in the world, btw whole South America is excluded from the infobox.... The RELIABLE SOURCES here and estimates of Serbian Diaspora Ministry actually do know their job, therefore they should be respected. You cannot input your personal opinions just like that... my personal opinion is there are about 10,5 million "pure Serbs" but with ancestral diaspora that figure can go up to 13 million even. But thats my personal opinion, i however know demographic history of Serbs in balkans... Dont forget there were 9,5 million Serbs in the Balkans in 1991 with a huge diaspora outside even then... the diaspora figure and people with Serbian ancestry have increased since alot of people fled the 90s wars and economic bad situation, they are steal leaving today... therefore inculde all of these facts, the 12 million figure as these sources say are to be respected and understood. Thas by me. Greetings. (Правичност (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC))

Recent edit problems about the total number

If there are any problems with the infobox, please state your reasons here and discuss them. Adrian (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

There's always some deviation between the total number based on the censuses and that of other sources, but in this case it's a 1.5 mil deviation based on nationalist sites like "Serbian Unity" and "Krajina Force". Btw I've notified an admin too[2] as we shouldn't even be having a discussion about the reliability of such sites.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion about all this sources conducted here [3] and by WP:CON we have agreed to change this number and add this sources as a reliable source. However if you have any doubt in this sources please be free to make a report on WP:RS (reliable sources noticeboard) and we can discuss this problem there if you wish, without any reverts and breaking of consensus. I will answer in short about the 2 sources you commented.

1) Serbian Unity source [4] takes the data from the NIN and Ministry for Diaspora. It is a non-governmental(It is not organized nor financed by the Serbian government) organization that is controlled by the State of Nebraska. That is pretty solid to me and other users, however if you think different please use the RS board.

2) Krajina Force is not rock solid to me too, but the data is not from that page but it only hosts a book that provides this data. The book - Online version of book "Croatian Storm and Serb migrations", by Dr. Stanko Nišić, Belgrade 2002) - (read end of page 14, under "2.Rasprostranjenost Srba"). As such it is also reliable.

However if you still think all this is unreliable please do not ignore other sources that provide the same number (12 million) like the Demographer Stevo Pasalic and European Commission web page. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

This source is being misused too: [5] It doesn't actually count 12 million Serbs, rather saying that the Serbian language is spoken by about 12m people. Surely folk editing in this area understand the problem of confusing language, nationality, and ethnicity... bobrayner (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If you check other nations articles you will notice that on several occasions "language numbers" are being used. We can add a note by this source to specify that the language number is used if needed. But if this is the problem, this can be corrected. This is only one source, there are others.Adrian (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The source does not actually support the claim that some editor used it for. As you know about other articles / templates with the same problem, please provide links, and I will go fix those too. bobrayner (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Look at Romanians article perhaps, you can see they count Romanians by speakers. But it is ok if you think removing the "linguistic source" is fine. Everything regarding the other sources Adrian stated, i agree with. We have take a real good look at those sources and they are quite reliable. It is ok by me if you input estimate at 10,5 (using Blic source) - 12 million (using other sources). But please dont mess up the infobox like it is being messed up now, i would also highy disagree about using that ~200.000 number for Germany, that coutns how many Serbia citizens live in germany regardless of any true "ethnic datas" (Serbs with only German citizenship, bosnian Serbs, Croatian Serbs, Montenegrin Serbs, Kosovo Serbs, Serbia Serbs etc...) they alltogether count allot more than that. So i think only 700.000 source should be used as it is most accompying and reliable regarding the ethnic serbs in germany. (Правичност (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC))

Regions and significant populations

Why are there arbitrary separations of the "rest of the Balkans", "rest of Europe", and so on? Why not remove this and just list them all in order of size? Also there are many countries that can't be considered to have "significant" populations. The Italian ethnic group infobox for example has a cutoff point of 20,000 for what it considers "significant". There about 9 countries that could be removed if this is followed and they could always be added in a section of the article. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 05:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you some of the countries could be removed especially those who have under 10,000 population by my opinion. And about those arbitary separations; those were already earlier included, i have however added them back because i consider it important to separate regions where Serbs are autohtonic people, regions where Serbs were or are currently constituent nation (Serbia and Bosnia nowadays and Croatia and Montenegro in the past), this would include only the Balkans ofcorse. While "Rest of Europe" stands as a difference between Serbian homelands or region, thus is qualified as a diaspora (European diaspora), while same goes for other regions such as North America and Rest of the world which are an overseas diaspora. Do you propose any other ideas on how to make it different? So we can make a concensus. (Правичност (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC))

I'd go for 20,000 as it's incredibly long for a infobox right now. The footnotes could be formatted to appear as article notes rather than infobox notes and would save space as well. I've never seen any ethnic group infobox make such a distinction and really it is cherrypicking what countries a person deems personally important. I've removed them, but I kept all your updated sources intact. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 06:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

About the footnotes, i think that might be a good idea, but lets wait for some other editors opinions. And about the numbers; im good with that, we can remove all countries with less than 20,000 population. However i would keep data for United Arab Emirates and South Africa, since those are non-Euro countries which are very rare on our infobox. And i would also keep Turkey since 315,000 people from there can claim Serbian descent. And for those separations,... how about we put only two of those... Balkans, and Diaspora. and enlist them by size... what you say? (Правичност (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC))

Keeping them would ignore the entire intent of displaying only "significant populations" and would undermine the cutoff. If there is a reliable aource for the Turkey figure then include it otherwise it should be cut like the others for being below 20,000. No other ethnic group infobox makes such regional distinctions and how a person chooses to define a "homeland", the Balkans, or diaspora will vary and inevitably lead to POV pushing. Things like "nation constituency" are best left to the main article and should not unnecessarily complicate the infobox. Keep it simple, don't group them, and just sort them by size like every other infobox. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 06:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Allright hope it looks good now, i didnt group them up, sorted them by size and simplified it. I only left info for Luxembourg- since its a small country with small population, having 8,000 serbs there sounds big- but i wuldnt mind if someone also removes it, i kept the Turkey data... it seems the first link about the 315,000 descent is a deadlink, perhaps some of other editors can "refresh" it, while the link about 65,000 serbian speakers is good. So i just left it alone for a while, if it wont get refreshed we can ofcourse remove the data if others agree. (Правичност (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC))