Jump to content

Talk:Serbs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aryanprince (talk | contribs) at 03:08, 12 November 2015 (→Origin of Serbian Ethnonym is clear). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Number of Serbs in diaspora countries

The infobox should include estimated number of ethnic Serbs in diaspora countries, and not immigrants from Serbia. The estimated number of Serbs living in Germany is 700,000, while the number of Serbian nationals in 2013 was 241,374 (which includes Kosovo Albanians, among other ethnic groups). See Serbian diaspora.--Zoupan 15:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one thing to do, and that is to move the data in the infobox to the table at Serbian diaspora.--Zoupan 22:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The number of serbs in Kosovo

I think that 140,000 serbs estimate is incredible as the OFFCIAL 2011 KOSOVO POPULATION CENSUS SAYS THERE ARE 25,532 SERBS IN KOSOVO.I know some serbs boycotted the process but this does not mean that we have to put the number at 140,000.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Suksesi (talk • contribs)

User:Suksesi claimed "Please do not use estimations while there are official numbers", when in fact, Minority figures in Kosovo census to be used with reservations: "It is the failure of northern Kosovo’s participation and the partial boycott by Serb and Roma communities in southern Kosovo that jeopardizes the validity of the census results.". I will have to report User:Suksesi next time.--Zoupan 17:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right when you say the 25,532 number is not correct but this does not mean that the real number is 100,000 or 140,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suksesi (talk • contribs) 17:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so ignorant? It is meant to show a realistic number, don't you think? That's what estimations are for (look up the word, estimation).--Zoupan 18:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some RESOURCED estimations put the number at around 40,000-50,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suksesi (talk • contribs) 18:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. You claimed 5 million Albanians in Turkey. Why insist on reducing the number of Serbs? Wait, that was a dumb question.--Zoupan 18:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have used a source for 5 mln albanians in Turkey .Why do not you use a source for your 100000 serbs in kosovo?Wait, that was a dumb question and you do not know the answer. Suksesi (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)User_talk:Suksesi[reply]

vandalism on articles

Information icon Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to multiple articles referring to Serb minorities without any appropriate unbiased references. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. Please refrain from un-constructive edits as they reduce the credibility of articles on Wikipedia. Please keep an open mind and subdue objective opinions. Thank You Do, Sdo... Ketu per gjithmon ! (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC) this is a customized user warning template by a banned user --Zoupan 20:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Serbs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source needed

″Later, Serbs created numerous small states located in Bosnia and Herzegovina″According to who? Where is the source?Tarmet (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic studies

Data from genetic studies, found at Genetic studies on Serbs, should not be presented in its entirety here. Apart from taking up space, breaking harmony, the data from few Y-DNA tests is given undue weight and goes against primary sources guidelines. Furthermore, one needs to understand that Haplogroups are complex, and should not be used for POV. I want to note this in case of future disruptive editing.--Zoupan 02:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, it's a too specialized field of study for such a general article. - Anonimski (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnonym

The origin of their ethnonym is unclear (see Names of the Serbs and Serbia). — isn't this as clear as it gets? There is no need for forking the theories found in that article to this one. --Zoupan 21:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of Serbian Ethnonym is clear

I don't know where to write this, but I call every Admin (if there are ones) to read this. I am charged for doing disruptive edits in this article. But I am not doing any edits, I am just reverting things that user Zoupan is doing. He is deleting section where Serbian genetics are written. Almost every nation on Wikipedia has Genetics subtheme in main article, Serbs also had it until 16. March 2015. when use Zoupan removed the section. This is the article until 16. March Serbs 16. March 2015. The DNA reserch has been done by European Union and is present on their website. The genetic section was well referenced and expressed. Obviously he is the one that is removing facts from Wikipedia, led by hate to Serbian people. He cant stand the fact that Serbs have 30-60% of I2 Haplogroup which is speciffic to Illyrians. His fake reason for removal is that it should be written in prose. If don't like how it is written now, he can rewrite it in prose. But until then, the Genetic section will stay intact. I can not belive that even on Wikipedia hate to Serbs is clear and that obvious.--Aryanprince (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the origin of the Serbian ethnonym? The talk header does not match your comment. What don't you understand? That section is a list of results from two Y-DNA tests. I repeat Data from genetic studies, found at Genetic studies on Serbs, should not be presented in its entirety here. Apart from taking up space, breaking harmony, the data from few Y-DNA tests is given undue weight and goes against primary sources guidelines. Furthermore, one needs to understand that Haplogroups are complex, and should not be used for POV. I want to note this in case of future disruptive editing. So the research has been done by the European Union? Woooow. I hate Serbian people? I don't care if Serbs have 1% or 99%, the results from tests are listed at that article, and not here.--Zoupan 03:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And what about this? Bulgarians. The have genetics in their main article. Why don't you go and delete their genetics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryanprince (talk • contribs) 13:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about it? I am contributing to this article. You didn't answer me.--Zoupan 11:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are contributing by hiding a truth that Serbs have 60% I2. That is your contribution.--Aryanprince (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My contribution is compiling the Genetic studies together with VVVladimir, and overall, Serbian studies. Hiding the truth? I am confused over what you are trying to prove when constantly calling upon I2; why are you neglecting the other haplogroups? The table does already exist in its proper article, is not conclusive (preliminary), and is in the way of harmonious reading. Get it. Y-DNA results are going to be summarized in prose, and until then, stop reverting. The two Y-DNA tests from 2005 are present at Genetic studies on Serbs. Overall, Serbs show close Y-DNA makeup with the other peoples of the Balkans, who all seem to be a mix of 3–5 larger haplogroups. Are you aware that one Y-DNA haplogroup does not prove and decide what makes a Serb, and what doesn't. Any normal person understands that the Balkans are not of one "stock". Also note, that ethno-genetic studies are still not perfected. Every year sub-clades are renamed, added, removed, with their geography and age pushed, not to mention the lack of mtDNA analysis (!). Raw data should not be used in this article. Also, there is no study with the result 60% (you are basing this on one Herzegovinian result). A more realistic general incidence in Serbs is 30% at this stage. Now, stop it.--Zoupan 17:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What harmony? The article is terrible and you speak about some harmony. You want to make it prose? Then make it, but until then I wont let you delete genetics. Other nation articles have genetics, Serbs will have it too. Go make some harmony on Bulgarian article whose genetics are written the same way Serbian genetics are written here and now. So, if you want to make it prose (because that is your reason), first you will have to make all articles about nations in prose, when it comes to genetics, and then come back and change Serbian genetics to prose composition. I think I am clear enough and rightful enough.--Aryanprince (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No.--Zoupan 22:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zoupan, the prose version of genetics is acceptable, I can confirm it and I wont revert it anymore, but hair color and eyes story is kinda wrong. Do you have any other source of this thmatic? Because as a Serbian I can confirm that more than 50% people have hair color other then black. I lived in almost all parts of Serbia, I born on Kosovo and Metohia, grow up in Central Serbia, Studied at Belgrade amd now I live in Montenegro, so I might know better how Serbs look like then this guy at year of 1956.--Aryanprince (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am afraid you are not a reliable source. The source says "50% black or very brown hair", which means that the other 50% doesn't have black or very brown hair. If you have a source saying otherwise, present it here.--Zoupan 03:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When someone says 50% black OR very brown hair, the truth can also be 49% brown and 1% black, but the way it is written it forces the state "50% black", it is game of words. Does this source have detailed information about this? Also, does this source mention the skin color?--Aryanprince (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to prove that Serbs belong to the so-called "white race"? You are calling Zoupan a Serb-hater?! That indicates that you have some serious mental issues. Please, do not try to "help" us any more with any Serbian subject on wikipedia. It is comical to assume that "Bulgarians" should be a model for writing any part of any article. The ridiculously long genetics section in that article is obviously a pathetic attempt to prove that the Bulgarians are not of Turkic origin (as it is commonly believed), but that "the Bulgarian population is genetically purely Indo-European" (!), citing some Bulgarian radio station and newspaper as sources (LOL). So sad... Aryanprince, what an absurd name for someone who represents himself as a Serb. Go away. Vladimir (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto.--Zoupan 17:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir, do I really need to go again trough this? My personal name is Arijan, that is why my nick on english is Aryan+prince. I did not wanted Bulgarians to be the model, I only mentioned that article as a shame of Wikipedia, and instead of spending your energy on defending this terrible article, you should go on Bulgarian page and shut their mouth up. When someone removes the sentence where it is stated, proven and referenced that Serbs have 30-60% of Ilyrian genes that one does not mean good to Serbs. Instead, you should come and help me on page Sergio to show the World that this name etymology is Serbian, and from Serbian language. A worldwide name present in almost all western languages is from serbian language. You should do more of that stuff, instead of this what you both do here.--Aryanprince (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aryanprince, to avoid confusion, and to avoid opponents exploiting it, maybe it would be better just to change your username to something else. Editors should be judged by their edit's not their usernames. Sergio is going to get a RfD from me. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And you couldn't state this at his talk page? Now back to matters. Halpern: "According to Carleton Coon, the Serbs [...] 45 per cent with pure brown eyes and only 20 per cent with light; 10 per cent have light hair while more than 50 per cent have either black or very dark brown hair." Stop changing the referenced material into your Original research.--Zoupan 22:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Zoupan, I just waited you to cite the book, now I can say you are terrible liar. You said "...while more than 50 per cent have either black or very dark brown hair...", while originally in book it says "...Over 50 per cent have black or dark brown hair...". So you added this word "very" to change the source and make us all fools or what? You think noone is reading sources right? Well today I readed the book you places here as source. This is why I will now again keep reverting your change because once liar always liar.The Races of Europe C.S.C. --Aryanprince (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am a terrible liar? Here you go, again. (45 per cent with pure brown eyes and only 20 per cent with light; 10 per cent have light hair while more than 50 per cent have either black or very dark brown hair.). You like reading Races of Europe? Aryan-prince. Silly. Now stop it, It is a reliable secondary source.--Zoupan 22:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cited you the original Book written by author C.S.C. where there is no word "very" in the statement of "very dark brown eyes". So this word "very" ether you or your source added (Joel Martin Halpern). I think the original author Carleton S. Coon should be considered, and not the one that cite him. So ether you or Halpern wanted to make harm to Serbian people with this change, which make ether you or him non reliable source.--Aryanprince (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the earlier source does not use the word "very", but the later source does and cites that earlier source as its only source for that particular data, then the earlier source is the one whose wording should be used to decide on article content. Halpern is citing only Coon for that data, Coon does not say "very", Halpern has added the word "very" for unknown reasons. So Aryanprince is correct on this use of "very". It should not be there. Aryanprince what wording/content do you want in the article? I think it would help if you put it all here as a whole, not little bits, all of it complete. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that whole story about hair and eyes color (which sounds like racism) should be removed from article. Another reason is that it would make Serbs maybe even a sole article where on English Wikipedia is talked about skin, hair and eyes colors. And last time when that was thematic in the World, Serbs where dying massively no matter what color their hair was. Zoupan charged me for racism but actually he was the one that added physical descriptions of Serbs in this article, and not me.--Aryanprince (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Serbs&oldid=690237142"