Talk:Serbs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Serbian language - audio recording[edit]

Do we have any recorded and uploaded sample of Serbian language on Wiki? That would indeed be a nice addition to the page. Mm.srb (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

There are many examples, such as pronunciation of AV's and other significant people's names. Those are not needed in this article as it is not about language but other topic. --Obsuser (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Number of Serbs[edit]

By the Serbian Diaspora office there is about 11 to 12 million Serbs. I think there is more than 10 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.214.244 (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, 11 to 12 million is more than 10 million.--2003:EE:3F2C:B542:95C1:89BD:68D3:800A (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
No way. Serbian Diaspora office is not neutral source. Per Ethnologue the total number of the users of Sebian language in all the countries around the world is 8,594,866. Jingiby (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Per Vladimir Grečić HOW CAN THE SERBIAN DIASPORA CONTRIBUTE MUCH MORE TO THE DEVELOPMENT AT HOME COUNTRY? published in the BULLETIN OF THE SERBIAN GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY 2016; Original scientific paper UDC 314.74 (=163.41) DOI: 10.2298/GSGD1602063G, p. 68: it is estimated that overall, Serbia has a diaspora of 3.5 million people. By the last census Serbs in Serbia were 6 Mill. people. How did yoy calculate 12 Mill. Serbs? My calculation follwing two reliable sources above is: 8.5 to 9.5 Mill. And please, do not delete my comments and sourced info. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Serbs from BIH are not diaspora, since they are autochtone constituent people. There is over a million of them there. Serbs in former Yugoslavia nowadays number close to 8 million. The 3-4 million diaspora is from outside of Balkan, and that is figure of 11-12 million. Also, page about Croats and Albanians vastly overestimate their number, if you estimate in the way Serbs are counted here. For instance, Croats in the sense Serbs are 10 million would barely make 7 million, but somehow added 2 million of "descendants" of Croatian origin (who do not speak croatian, or rather serbo-croatian) in USA to stretch number to 7-9 million. Corresponding number of Serbs is in this way easily over 12 million, in fact, in Turkey alone, there are 9 million people who have some Serb origin (they are not included as Serbs in any count, but by the logic of count of Croatians, there would be over 20 million people of Serbian origin if counted this liberally). So, serious anti-serbian bias here, the conservative estimate and range of 11-12 million was removed by antiserbian POV editors, who are numerous. Number of 10 million just cannot stand, it is an underestimate even of the people who use only Serbian language, and many in Serbian diaspora (second generation) are not fluent Serbian speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.204.144 (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Serbs are not a nation[edit]

Please see also other Wikipedias and you won't find that Serbs are a nation. They formed a nation but those who formed it – along with other who belong to it – are called Serbians, Serbians are a nation (they have passport/state). Please don't mix these two terms because it's WP:POV to call all national Serbians Serbs. There are other etnic groups besides Serbs in Serbia. --Obsuser (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted your additions because they are unsourced. Please provide WP:RELIABLESOURCES for all your claims. Dr. K. 11:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
This "idea" is so ludicrous that I won't comment on it. Do you even know the difference between Serbians and Serbs? Stop with the vandalism and pushing your POV. I understand that you think that you have a point - but you don't. Mm.srb (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I reverted to the pre edit-war version as I failed to see where in the sources "Serbian" (in English!) is discussed as a separate adjective from "Serb" (in English!). Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: I've reverted your revert. The information is sourced and, upon review, reliable. It doesn't belong in the lead, but I think it's a good addition to the article. Non-English sources are allowed per WP:NONENG. One of the sources is in fact in English and discusses the use of "Serb" vs. "Serbian", though the sourced in Serbian are more verbose. AlexEng(TALK) 00:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@AlexEng: - Non-English sources are allowed, yes, though English sources are preferred. However, in this particular case, we are talking about use of "Serb" and "Serbian" in English - "The adjective for the English term Serbs". I don't see where the cited sources support the English language usage here. As for Serbo-Croatian - per AJ for instance - this seems to be a contested topic. Please provide a quote (+translation - as required in WP:NOENG), from the cited sources, supporting - "The adjective for the English term Serbs (i.e. Serb in its singular form) is "Serb" and not "Serbian", which is an adjective for the noun Serbians (i.e. Serbian in its singular form) or for the noun Serbia.".Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Discuss this on talk, not via edit summaries/edit warring. This article is subject to discretionary sanctions from ArbCom. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually, AlexEng, it would be a good idea to speak at least the basics the said non-English language before jumping into the edit war to keep the contentious material in. Per WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN, challenged material should stay out of the article during the dispute. Exceptional claims such as this require exceptional sources, and an Al Jazeera opinion piece hardly suffices as a RS for linguistic material on English usage, and a treatise of certain Branko Đ. Nikač titled "A few Greater Serbian forgeries" hardly inspires confidence. No such user (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Language of the sources is not important because meaning is important and not language in which something is said. It is paradoxal that "Sky is blue" is more valued as Wikipedia reference than "Der Himmel ist blau" (if published by reliable source of course). --Obsuser (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Linguistic considerations aside, I'm inclined to remove the claim that "Serbs are a nation" from the lead, as the article clearly pertains to Serbs as an ethnic group. Serbia is a nation in modern sense indeed, but it should not be conflated with the ethnic group it was . When precision is required, we tend to use "Serbians" for inhabitants of Serbia and "Serbs" in ethnic sense on Wikipedia but this distinction is far from universal in the real world. No such user (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree for the first part because pure truth is that Serbs are not a nation. Second part: I agree too, except that this distinction is far from universal in the real world because only for Serbs it is not universal, for other people distinction does exist; even other people in Serbia don't call themselves Serbs but Serbians. Only problem is that other world languages don't have word for Serbians so they use same word for both Serbs and Serbians (ru Сербы, de Serben, fr Serbes, pl Serbowie). Difference exists primarily in South Slavic languages because they know exaclty who they are talking about, citizens of Serbia or ethnic/people group. Check also where in the main body of the article Serbs are reffered to as a nation; nowhere. I suggest thus first to remove from the lede that they are a nation, and then to add back well sourced* paragraph about difference in the adjective usage (whether to the lede or down there in the new section Nomenclature or whatever we call it).
* I say well sourced because if you really checked references I added you would have found these (I will cite relevant parts, translate them as English translation in parenthesis and add explanations when needed after ndash):
  • first ref, prometej.ba: Prema tom tumačenju, pridjev “srpski” vrijeđa Bošnjake i Hrvate, a pridjev “bosanski” vrijeđa Srbe, iako žive u državi koja se zove Bosna i Hercegovina. (English translation: According to that interpretation, the adjective "Serb" ("srpski") offends Bosniaks and Croats, and the adjective "Bosnian" ("bosanski") offends Serbs, although they live in a country called Bosnia and Herzegovina.) – This means that adjective Serb offends Bosniaks and Croats (as well as Romani people, Polish people and all other ethnic groups that live in Serbia) because it cannot be applied to them; they have their own native ethnic affiliation (previously mentioned, Bosniaks, Croats, Romani, Polish etc.) and calling them Serbs (because Serbs are not a nation) implies they are ethnic Serbs (Serbs by their ancestry, what is exactly goal of the historic ethnic Serbian nationalism, what is also stated in the paragraph I provided). All those peoples, Bosniaks, Croats, Romani, Polish etc. can only be called Serbians if they have passport of Serbia because they are by nationality Serbians (not Serbs).
  • second ref, balkans.aljazeera.net:
  • third ref, academia.edu:
The cultural landscape changed too: a process of ‘Serbisation’ of the region began. ... Both Albanian and Serbian cultural objects were targeted in the years of conflict ... whose staunch opposition against Kosovo’s independence is deemed essential by the Serbs – decorates posters and billboards), represent ‘pieces of Serbia in Kosovo’ as everything is written in the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet and Serbian ? and inscriptions ‘Republic of Serbia’ decorate the landscape ...
  • fourth ref, hrcak and fifth Nikač talk about language and ethnic appropriations, respectively.
See also "J.P. Mallory and D.Q. Adams, "Protect", The Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture (London: Fitzroy and Dearborn, 1997)" where it is said for English exatly that noun Serb is A person of Serb descent (not necessarily from Serbia). (Compare Serbian.) and as adjective Serb Of or pertaining to the Serbs; Serbian. (wikt:Serb#English).
Also note that Serbian language Wikipedia follows SANU reccomendations of using Serb when meaning citizenship, so in the lede of the articles on this language version of Wikipedia it is said "''NN_person'' is [[Serbia|Serb]] ([[Srbija|srpski]]) ''proffesion_placeholder''", what is inconsistent, NNPOV (non-neutral POV) and bias in the favor of Serbs. Somewhere, where there should be national and not ethnic affiliation there was ethnic affiliation with no explainable reason: "''NN_person'' is [[Serbs|Serb]] ([[Srbi|spski]]) ''proffesion_placeholder''".
After all this, it is impossible to conlude that this topic is not relevant for the article on Serbs. There are some facts that need no source, such as different usage of possesive adjectives in Serbian and Bosnian language due to political-ethnic-linguistic malversations (these can be checked in official ortographies: link for Serbian and the download link for Bosnian (other link)). --Obsuser (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Serbs, an ethnic group, formed the Serbian nation as of the 19th century. The editor who started this debate does not understand the difference between nation and national. His thinking is based on the present-day situation. The idea is that all the citizens of Serbia are Serbians (which would be correct in English) and thus making Serbians a nation and not Serbs. It is just a POV which has been pushed too far.
In all honesty I can’t belive that such a poor hypothesis has been given so much space. It is an idea pushed by a small circle of people in Serbia, such as far-right political activist Miša Vacić. There is no support for this idea in any of the relevant academic circles either from Serbia or abroad. I do not see this sort of discussion about any of the other nation of Europe or the Balkans. That is, I have seen poor attempts to something of the sort on Ukranians. It is most problematic on several levels.
If only one of the total five sources is in English, @AlexEng: how did you manage to read the rest and make a fair judgment on the matter? Going with an undo in a heated situation like this is not the way to go in my book. I learned that the hard way.
I in fact took the time to read all of them. 1) Paper by Marko Samadržija titled “Nekoć i nedavno” does not say a word on the matter - ZERO. 2)Al Jazeera is a regional media which often pushes Bosnian that is Bosniak POV and using it as a source on this (more serious question, I dare say) is not reliable. Even more so if we take in consideration that the content of the article is tabloid like, with a populistic title and so on. 3)The academia paper (in English) does not discuss the difference of Serb-Serbian.  Secondly, it’s not even about Serbian nation. Could you point out the page in which you found such a discussion? 4) prometej.ba does not mention this matter, NOT ONE word. It’s topic is the name change which happened after the Bosnian war. The same portal often publishes articles full of hate speech and nationalistic dribble. 5) The cited papers by Nikač are mere pamphlets. The author is a nationalistically driven publicist and has no proper education on the matter. Pat of the quoted writings which I managed to find did not say anyhing on this matter. He is the sort of go-to guy for forum warriors and such bunch. No credibility whatsoever.
To summ it up - those sources are pretty much rubbish and it is a clear citation overkill in attempt to mask those refs as legit.
Serbs as an ethnic group form the Serbian nation. That does not meant that Serbs are not a nation. I do not think that it can be any clearer. Writers in English often do not make this difference. There is another level to it when it comes to regional meaning.
Furthermore, I did not find any official definition for the alleged nomenclature (Oxford d. and others) that is Serb-Serbian, in this context.
The restored text suggests that Serb do not know how to call their own nation or language. Not to mention terrible style…
I can’t belive that life was given to something like this.
Taka a closer look at:
https://books.google.rs/books?id=2Wc-DWRzoeIC&pg=PR16&dq=Serbs+as+a+nation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKqOWb_87jAhVM_SoKHQEoBxE4ChDoAQg4MAM#v=onepage&q=Serbs%20as%20a%20nation&f=false
https://books.google.rs/books?id=NB_TCBY-jooC&pg=PA181&dq=Serbs+a+nation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZqY7I187jAhWEfZoKHT89BDM4FBDoAQgoMAA#v=onepage&q=Serbs%20a%20nation&f=false
https://books.google.rs/books?id=XAEauYA7rrMC&pg=PA135&dq=Serbs+a+nation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZqY7I187jAhWEfZoKHT89BDM4FBDoAQhTMAc#v=onepage&q=Serbs%20a%20nation&f=false
https://books.google.rs/books?id=RDq8b_8Q_gEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Serbs+as+a+nation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE2ujL_s7jAhUJ-aQKHaJWBpsQ6AEIQjAE#v=onepage&q&f=false Mm.srb
https://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Worlds-Minorities-Carl-Skutsch/dp/157958392X - page 1083.
(talk) 20:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
They did form the Serbian nation but they themselves do not represent it (completely), they themselves did not become nation after forming the nation (which consisted, at the time they "formed it" of other ethnic groups too, it was not 100% Serb society but with other ethnic groups too). Nation, national and nationality have same root meaning, pertaining or making the relationship with state (and not an ethnicity). Of course it is based on present day situation, I won't base it on 200 or 100 years old world law nor Yugoslavian law which had political motivation to put nationality instead of ethnicity in the census. Yes, but that is not the idea but factual state of matter; you are giving logically impossible statement at the end, thus making Serbians a nation and not Serbs, because Serbians are a nation but that does not imply they cannot be Serbs too (some, i.e. most of them, but not all!). It is just a POV which has been pushed too far. I think ethnically nationalist Serbs have actually POV pushed too far, making all Serbians Serbs; POV means point of view, and neutral point of view is that not all Serbians are Serbs becaus there are some Bosniaks, Croats, Romani, French, Polish, Russian, Macedonian, Montenegrin, Turkish and other peoples there (other ethnic groups there among all Serbians). It is clear as sunny day who's pushing non-neutral POV, not exactly clear why but it is clear who's pushing non-neutral POV.
And I cannot believe that such a funny idea of calling all Serbians Serbs and calling those Serbs a nation succeeds in some situations. It is an idea pushed by a small circle of people in Serbia, such as far-right political activist Miša Vacić. There is no support for this idea in any of the relevant academic circles either from Serbia or abroad. – Of course you are wrong here; in Serbia maybe there is some small circle putting truth in front of lies, but in BiH all media uses adjective srbijanski (Serbian) when referring to the nation and srpski (Serb) when referring to the ethnic group, and that does not bother English people because they say too that Đoković is a Serbian player and not Serb player (it just bothers ethnically national Serbs, not all Serbians of course and not all Serbs who know that they do not make Serbian nation alone). I do not see this sort of discussion about any of the other nation of Europe or the Balkans. That is, I have seen poor attempts to something of the sort on Ukranians. It is most problematic on several levels. Of course you don't see it because Serbs are only ethnic group in the world that wants to declare all the citizens in their national state in which they make majority as belonging to their ethnicity (I can call it tribe because ethnicity is tribal/ancestry category and nationality is citizen/state category). Ukrainians are both ethnic group and nation (with different meaning if you mention ethnic Ukrainians who are sole ethnic group and national Ukrainians including ethnic Russians and other ethnic groups in Ukraine; it is said right now in the lede of the article on Ukrainians that they are both ethnic group and a nation, so I do not see any problem there).
Proof that you are biased is you saying Bosnian that is Bosniak. You don't recognize Bosnians and Herzegovinians as a nation and make them equal to Bosniaks, who are just one ethnic group (and not a nation, that makes up Bosnians and Herzegovinians as a nation). Al Jazeera is realiable actually and not pushing any non-neutral POVs, and title is not populistic but "truthistic". You make cited works miserable and consider five of the works you found (written by people, same as Nikač or any other scientist) as holly. Prove nationalistically driven publicist and has no proper education on the matter.
I will copy you: Those books.google.rs sources are pretty much rubbish and it is a clear citation overkill in attempt to mask those refs as legit. Btw, we use books.google.com and not .rs as international and neutral domain.
Serbs as an ethnic group form the Serbian nation. That does not meant that Serbs are not a nation. I do not think that it can be any clearer. Writers in English often do not make this difference. There is another level to it when it comes to regional meaning. – Pure illogicalness. You falsely concluded from "Serbs as an ethnic group form the Serbian nation." that "That does not meant that Serbs are not a nation." because Serbs as an ethnic group form only part of the Serbian nation and do not form the Serbian nation, thus meaning that Serbs are not a nation. Now it cannot be any clearer. It is pure lie that writers in English often do not make this difference because writers in English mostly (if not in almost all circumstances) use the adjective Serbian when referring to primarily Serbians and much more rare to Serbs; do you read titles about Serb tennis players: no; why, because you don't read titles about Bosniak basketball players who play for USA because ethnicity is irrelevant subject in the modern world, you only hear about American players (USA is nation and not ethnicity, same as Serbia; Bosniak is ethnicity and not a nation, same as Serbs; Croat is both ethnicity and a nation but Croatian would primarily be a nation and Croat would primarily be ethnicity, if one want to make difference when using English names for those men and women)...
There is another level to it when it comes to regional meaning. – There is no region Serbia nor region Serbs so there is no regional meaning.
I cited Wiktionary i.e. reference used in Wiktionary term that gives only one meaning on Serbs. Is it valid or you will deminish that author's reputation too?
The restored text suggests that Serb do not know how to call their own nation or language. Not to mention terrible style… – It is completely irrelevant per se how one calls himself/herself if it is not true. If Jackie Chan comes to the stage one day and says loudly "People, I'm a German." it does not mean Wikipedia lede will begin with "Jackie Chan is a German actor" etc.; it would only mean note on him saying what he thinks he is would be added. Same with ethnically national Serbs; we need to put true meaning of the term Serb, with additional text on what ethnically national Serbs regard Serbs represent (maybe all Serbians as I could understand from your biased philosophy). What is a terrible style? Why don't you fix the style instead of deleting everything?
Of course it was given because some people wan't some answers on how other people want from all people to call these first ones.
Your sources are: first one from a Serb Sima M. Cirkovic, second one from a Serb again Aleksa Djilas, third one you won't believe from a Serb again Jovan Byford, fourth one from some Slavic man again Toma Longinović and fifth one unverifiable source (book is not available if one does not buy it, so putting page 1083 does not mean a thing for a reader who wants to check info in it and compare it to Wikipedia statement). If you think you can "buy" anyone with John Wiley & Sons, Harvard University Press, Central European University Press, Duke University Press or Routledge as publishers – that story does not weigh a pound because those people working in such institutions still write from their own heads, exactly the same way as Nikač or any other man (you or me) does; I don't say someone with doctor degree and someone with high school are competent the same level, but don't exclude those who don't have institutions behind themselves automatically as nationalistically driven publicist and has no proper education on the matter without citing proofs for that statement.
And try to find ICTY lawyers and judges (I mention ICTY because there was much talk about Serbs and ethnicity-nationality differences during the trials and other sessions there), or any other world competent lawyers and jurists (don't choose only Serbs or those biased) calling Serbs or Bosniaks a nation. Anthropologists and sociologists could make mistakes in their works, but you won't find mistakes in proper jurists' "works" because they know law and terminology better than those who invent it every several days – one day with this meaning from one author and the other day with that meaning from another author etc. (i.e. such work vary from one scientist to another, as how they interpret and understand terms; whatsoever, they take right to define them in their works, but there should only be one legal definition of a nation for e.g., don't mix legal and some-scientist-out-there-working-on-some-prestigious-or-less-prestigious-university-somewhere-else). If you do find such a lawyer or judge or jurist who calls Serbs a nation or calls all Serbians Serbs or calls Serbs automatically Serbians, I will not comment anything anymore. [e] --Obsuser (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Do you honestly excepct a well-argumented and an adult like discussion after something like this? Linguistic manipulation in order to discredit the existence of a nation, a clear POV, is as low as it gets in my book. You do not get the basic sociological terminology. The same logic could be applied on Croat-Croatians, Bulgar-Bulgarians and so on, all under the notion that minorities live there, which is yet another pseudo-argument. You misinterpreted some parts of my answer. I do not care to explain further, because you are clearly not here to discuss but to force your views, which can be well seen on the case of casual dismissal of notable sources published by some of the great experts and on the matter, in publishing house with top-notch standards, like the one by Sima Ćirković. I just saw that you have been permanently banned on Serbian Wiki because of something like this and other violations as well. The rest is buch of pseudo-arguments, like calling out some ICTY lawyers and their views. I will just quote this one - There is no region Serbia nor region Serbs so there is no regional meaning. I would be most grateful if other editors were to take a look at the total of five sources which I have provided above because I think that they should be included in the article. The book in question (Amazon link) can also be found on Google Books. Mm.srb (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a distinction here between referring to a nation state (such as Serbia) and a nation of people (Serbs). Nation was the term used in Yugoslav historiography to refer to the various major nations of peoples, ie Serbs, Croats, Macedonians etc, that formed Yugoslavia. In that context, it was not used to mean the constituent republics (nation states), but to the peoples of that ethnic group within Yugoslavia, who were spread across the country in different republics. The intersection between the nation state and the nations of people was often referred to as the "national question", and was made more complex in those areas of Yugoslavia where the nations of people were very intermixed, like Bosnia and Herzegovina, than in relatively homogenous Slovenia, for example. The reliable sources, reaching as far back as Vuk Karadžić, refer to Serbs as a nation of people, this is so common in the literature that I don't understand how you could think otherwise. For one explanation of this, see Between Nation and State: Serbian Politics in Croatia Before the First World War by Nicholas J. Miller. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Image in the infobox and its caption[edit]

Image that was put in the infobox (File:Srpska_nosnja.jpg) with the caption "Traditional Serbian costumes from Šumadija" should have get some altered caption because one does not care about Serbian costumes from Šumadija if these are not actually Serb costumes from Šumadija (and how will reader know at the very beginning that Šumadija as a Serbian region is mostly Serb populated)? --Obsuser (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, captions on Wikimedia Commons are English: Serbian national costume, Српски / srpski: Српска народна ношња and Русский: Сербский национальный костюм which is completely inconsistent. If it is Српска народна ношња (people's [i.e. ethnical] costume of Serbs), it cannot be Сербский национальный костюм because it is not national costume of all Serbians (there are Bosniak people's costumes of Serbia too, for e.g., but there are no Bosniak national costumes of Serbia or any other country) but only is folklore/ethnical/people's costume of Serbs from Serbia's region Šumadija where they make majority. --Obsuser (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

That's why I put "Traditional Serb costumes from Šumadija", and it has been reverted – even though English Wiktionary has a proper definition for the term Serb (as well all all meanings for the term Serbian, second of which is relating to Serbs, and that one is unfortunately [for some] not appropriate for this occasion here). In the article Serbian traditional clothing you will find šubara and Montenegrin Serb Dusanka vest (instead of Montenegrin Serbian Dusanka vest, beacuse article talks about Serbian traditional clothing and not Serb traditional clothing) too, which are from ethnic Russians and ethnic Montenegrins. --Obsuser (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Genetic Studies[edit]

I propose to change the wording of the following passage:

Genetic studies on Serbs show that they have close affinity with the rest of the Balkan peoples, and especially those within former Yugoslavia


Perhaps you can replace the word "especially" to specifically. I read the reference to it and I don't see this written anywhere in the article. There is no "close affinity" with all the Balkan people. There needs to be more precision here if you wish to say "the rest of the Balkan peoples". In the passage above it indicates that Serbs are very close to Albanians, Greeks and Romanians genetically but if you see their DNA results from ancestry there is quite a difference. Or perhaps the close affinity is referring to haplogroups, which then should be stated as such.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2019[edit]

Genetic Studies[edit source] I propose to change the wording of the following passage: Genetic studies on Serbs show that they have close affinity with the rest of the Balkan peoples, and especially those within former Yugoslavia

Perhaps you can replace the word "especially" to specifically. I read the reference to it and I don't see this written anywhere in the article. There is no "close affinity" with all the Balkan people. There needs to be more precision here if you wish to say "the rest of the Balkan peoples". In the passage above it indicates that Serbs are very close to Albanians, Greeks and Romanians genetically but if you see their DNA results from ancestry there is quite a difference. Or perhaps the close affinity is referring to haplogroups, which then should be stated as such. Shebashiba (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Clarified by JingibyThjarkur (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional names in diaspora[edit]

Perhaps you can also add the following names to the paragraph listing Serbian American actors : Lolita Davidovich, Sasha Alexander, Sarah Sokolovic, Bojana Novakovic. (Judy Greer has a Serbian grandmother, though this may be a stretch.) Ivan Petrovich was a well known silent screen actor in Germany, during a time when German cinema was as important as Hollywood’s. He also sang opera and did a few films in Hollywood. Sasha Montenegro was an actress famous in Mexico during the 1970’s. Film maker Slavko Vorkapić was a pioneer of Hollywood montage between the two world wars.

As for music,Lene Lovich is a well known New Wave singer. Luigi von Kunits help found the Toronto symphony, in Canada’s largest city. Ana Sokolovic is an award winning composer and Alex Lifeson is a member of the legendary rock band Rush (band). Filip Filipi is a hip hop producer who has worked with big names like The Weekend and Drake. Roksanda Ilinčić is huge in fashion design, as is French fashion designer Stephane Ashpool. German industrial designer Konstantin Grcic has won many awards, and Sacha Lakic designs for big firms in France. Writers in the diaspora include Aleksandar Hemon, Prvoslav Vujcic and Olivia Sudjic.

You should really include Marina Abramovic in the arts section. She is one of the biggest names in art today! Maja Pantić could be added to the list of scientists. She is a British scientist currently working in the field of artificial intelligence. Since information technology is a growing sector in Belgrade, perhaps there are more names from the IT field. Mileva Maric’s name is also missing from the list of scientists. She should be included, not just for being married to Einstein, but also for being a physicist at a time when few women in Europe were.

I hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.169.185 (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input and time! I will add the mentioned names somewhere in near future. Sadko (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)