Talk:Serbs

There is ongoing edit-warring in the infobox over the total population of Serbs (~9 million vs. 11 million). I’d like to reach consensus and stop the reverts.

The ~9 million figure is simply the arithmetic sum of every country-by-country Serb population already listed and individually cited in the article (Serbia 2022 census, Montenegro 2023, Croatia 2021, BiH 2013, plus diaspora from official German/Austrian//US/etc. statistics).

This aggregation aligns with WP:CALC which explicitly allows routine calculation when based on cited numbers. It's not the original research, just routine addition of cited numbers. And it's transparent: any reader can verify by adding up the references.

This method (displaying the straightforward sum of the cited figures as the worldwide total) has been the long-standing, stable practice on this article for several years (easily visible in the page history since at least 2020-2021).

The recent change to 11 million by Theonewithreason introduced a single source whose content is inaccessible, making the claim unverifiable. Per WP:VER, an unverifiable source should not override the transparent sum of many checkable, up-to-date reliable sources.

Additionally, this change broke the article’s long-standing editorial practice without prior discussion.

I therefore restored the calculated total per WP:CALC.

Regards, Klačko (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

First of all, I really appreciate the work that has recently gone into this and other articles about the Serbs. The recent edits have introduced radical, in-depth changes to the article. Some of those changes are improvements, but others are not. Sourced material was removed, many images were added, and the article is not looking great, and the paragraphs were reorganized in ways that are not always great. For example, the “Notable people” section now feels redundant; the idea is to present the contributions of the nation, not only notable individuals. In addition, the debate about the population count remains unresolved. We also lost substantial content (for example, the info. on Rudjer Boskovic), while new material was added that treats the Kosovo myth solely from the perspective of alleged mythomania? Those are just a few examples. Furthermore, Klačko has removed the infobox organization he originally implemented, including the “Native” and “Diaspora” fields. In addition, I'm not sure whether we should list countries with only about 1,000 members of the ethnic group in the infobox.

Making sweeping changes without explaining them in great detail, and opening a new TP topic only when other editors disagree, is not the best way to go. I'm not very satisfied with the recent edits. Before these changes, I spent a great deal of time and patience reviewing every small edit. Now there are so many alterations that I feel compelled to restore the article to the last stable version (20:52, 6 December 2025), per our longstanding policies, until these issues are resolved. Please use the TP more, and let’s work through this bit by bit, civilly and in good faith.

Recently involved editors: @Klačko and Theonewithreason:. — Sadko (words are wind) 16:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Sadko. I appreciate your take on all of this, and I will try to clarify the reasoning behind the recent edits. First of all, all changes I made were in good faith and thoroughly explained in edit box summaries (I fail to see what sweeping changes were not explained in great detail) with general intent of bringing the article to higher standards, both content- and linguistically-wise.

I agree that further discussion is productive, and I’m happy to go through any individual point on the talk page.

The previous Arts, Literature, Cinema, Music, etc. sections were almost entirely lists of individuals and their contributions not general cultural contributions of a group. So I grouped it under the Notable people section. It seems to me that you miss the point about that: the idea is NOT to present the contributions of the nation (for that serves article Serbia) but accomplishments of Serb people thorugh prominent individuals - accomplishments that can be attributed personally to the great men and women of this ethnic group. All the general cultural traits (traditions, folklore, language, symbols, etc.) remained grouped under Culture because that indeed is culture of Serb people as a whole.

Rudjer Bošković mention seemed bit controversial but if you insist go and reinsert it. His ethnicity is highly disputed and not straightforwardly Serb. This risks WP:NPOV issues, you know how it goes here in the Balkans and that spills over to Wikipedia too. Not to mention that he's already covered in articles like Croats and List of Croats. I find listing Ivo Andrić controversial too since he was not by any means ethnic Serb although he is part of Serbian literature. This is after all article about Serbs as an ethnic group (not Serbia or Serbian literature which he is no doubt part of it).

As for Kosovo Myth, the intention was not to present the Kosovo myth through the lens of mythomania, not at all, but as the foundation myth of Serbs as an ethnic group, kind of myth that many people/ethnicities have. We can refine the wording, or move it altogether if you find it problematic.

As for many images added, I found it regretable to have collage of notable athletes but not that of notable artists, cinematic figures, poets, etc.

The infobox fields Native and Diaspora that I introduced it myself were non-standard and not used consistently in related articles, so I decided to remove it. I recently discussed it with you.

My edits for population figures were to ensure that the numbers are consistently sourced and remove outdated figures. As for countries with Serb population of 1,000 or so, usual threshold in the articles about the ethnic groups of similar size is 1,000 although some go down even further and list countries with 100+ populations.

All in all, if specific data/images/or other content are problematic, let’s discuss them Sadko individually rather than revert them all to the "stable" version which was rather incoherent, not to mention language quality which was abysmal and I put great effort to improve it.

Regards, Klačko (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

One more observation or rather proposition. I urge you all to compare content in the subsections of Arts, Cinema, Philosophy as well as Literature and Music before and after my yesterdays edits. To all mentioned subsections significant amount of new content was added and language flow and style was improved, thus would be glad to hear what specific edits there would be regarded as problematic (besides removing Rudjer Bošković, which we can settle on fairly quickly)? I would really like to hear which added content has issues of that magnitude (if any) that needs to be reverted to previous stable version? Klačko (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Generally speaking, your edits are clearly well-intentioned, and there are numerous improvements made to the article on several levels. At the same time, there are many changes that I do not think are for the better. I have noticed that the edits tend to be too Serbia-centered, bearing in mind that 40% of the nation lives outside Serbia and that many Serbs in Serbia settled there at some point. In addition, you remove content too easily or too arbitrarily, and several edits were left completely unexplained. My advice is not to strictly follow a supposed “standard” used in articles about other ethnic groups. These standards have changed rapidly over the years, and I am sure you have noticed the same. Most of the illustrations and chosen photographs or collages were also not particularly strong.

Very much so, there is something called WP:STABLE, and anyone could revert in a case like this, and they would be right to do so. Out of respect for the work done and the fact that we have a common goal, I do not plan to do so yet, and I'll try to address what I perceive to be issues, point by point:

• I believe that the Native/Diaspora division, with RS, B&H and MNE listed, was a neat, elegant, and original solution.
• Bošković should be included, especially since the formulation followed NPOV principles.
• The section on the Kosovo Myth definitely needs rewording.
• Mila Turajlić, who received probably the most important awards in documentary filmmaking worldwide, and Stefan Arsenijević, who won the Berlin Golden Bear, were both removed.
• The illustrations are not well chosen; there are too many of them, and some collages feel oddly assembled. One collage for both poets and writers, for instance, does not work well.
  • You also removed the depiction of the Battle of Cer, the first Allied victory of the war. This battle has global significance, and there has never been a good reason to omit it. The new image representing the Jasenovac camp looks amateurish. The image on genetics was removed as well, which is fine. I do like the image in the “Cuisine” section, and we had a similar one not long ago.
  • I've previously agreed to a number of new illustrations, but the latest additions have not really helped the article that much. Btw. I originally created the collages currently used to illustrate the article (Literature, Science, Sports). In the new collage, Jovan Cvijić was removed and Mileva Marić was added, although her contributions to science remain questionable. Cvijić is the founder of geography in Serbia, a pioneer in several fields, and an extremely productive scholar.
• The information about the Serbo-7 group of scientists and engineers was also removed.
• You consider the inclusion of Andrić controversial, but I simply do not see why. He is mentioned under “Literature,” which is entirely appropriate. He was clear about who he was, regardless of his origins.
• This is not primarily about listing notable individuals. I understand your point that many cultural achievements were created collectively, such as Serbian epic poetry. Still, in some sections it is necessary to discuss individuals. A useful comparison can be found in the Culture section of the English people article.
• Regarding style, brackets are used far too often. The Music section is a good example. The writing could flow much better.
• This should have stayed, as it provides a stronger introduction and is supported by excellent sources. It could be phrased as: “Serbs share common cultural heritage.”
• A few days ago you removed the entry: “The Hungarian citizen Momčilo Tapavica was the first Slav and Serb to win an Olympic medal at the 1896 Summer Olympics.” I do not understand why this would be considered irrelevant. If the sentence seemed awkward or lacked context, it could have been improved rather than removed.
• The first sentence under /Literature/ is perhaps WP:PEACOCK.
• The total number of the population should be c. 10 mill. or 9–10. Who can be considered a part of an ethnic group can be interpreted in a number of ways. Just counting the census data is good, but there will be a number of people who refused to say that they belong to the group. Just see the most recent census in Serbia: 10% of citizens did not declare. Arguably a big part of this 10% are of Serb origin.
• You have completely reworded this sentence, and not for the better: A) With the decline of the Serbian state of Duklja in the late 11th century, Raška separated from it and replaced it as the most powerful Serbian state. B) With the collapse of Duklja in the late 12th century, Raška gained independence and succeeded it as the most powerful Serbian polity.
• Both of these were removed: There are more Serbian scientists and scholars working abroad than in the Balkans. At least 7000 Serbs who have a PhD are working abroad.[167] Medical specialists from Serbia have performed a number of operations which have been described as pioneer works.[168][169] How is this not notable? This data can give the reader important context about the Serb diaspora and medicine.
• This claim was introduced – The founder of modern Serbian philosophy is considered Dositej Obradović, an Enlightenment thinker, writer, educator and the first Minister of Education of Serbia, who promoted rationalism and Secular humanism. It's unsourced and should be checked. He popularized Enlightenment-thinking and did a lot of work for the education of the nation, that much is true.
• You've removed the fact that Croatian Serbs were the bulk of Partisan forces from Croatia until the fall of Italy, and that Bosnian Serbs were the majority of Partisans from Bosnia. Okay, I guess that you think that the information about the overall percentage is only relevant for this article. But did you, by any chance, copy this information to other articles? This is a general question: if we remove something that is reliably sourced, in my book, we should try to copy it, with attribution, to another appropriate article.

• Additional ideas:
  • In the science section, perhaps mention that Branko Milanović is a leading expert on inequality.
  • We have an image of a wolf, the national animal, with good references, but there is no mention of the national animal, bird, or flower. One sentence could cover all of this.
  • We could also link articles to figures; for example, 300,000 would link to Serbs in Austria.
  • We should pay closer attention not to use too many images that are already part of Serbia.

That's all for now. Thanks in advance, for your time and effort. — Sadko (words are wind) 20:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I am more than willing to agree on most points you raised.

1. Ruđer Bošković - agree to restore him.

2. Kosovo Myth - agreed. Feel free to suggest exact wording or change it way you think it is appropriate or even remove it, since that was a recent addition.

3. Mila Turajlić and Stefan Arsenijević. I have no objection to including them, even though their work consists of documentaries and short films rather than feature films. Just for clarity: Stefan Arsenijević received the Golden Bear Short Film Award, which is entirely different award to Golden Bear which is awarded only to feature films. It was unfortunate that Želimir Žilnik was not mentioned at all until my edits two days ago, considering he is the only director from the region to have won the main Golden Bear.

4. Images. fair point, some collages were hastily done. My goal was simply to include at least one woman per collage for gender balance. Cvijić is important in Serbia and the region, but his international recognition is almost non-existant. Mileva Marić has considerable global name recognition due to her association with Einstein, but also because of the ongoing international public interest in her own contributions. You yourself mentioned Branko Milanović, who is already far more widely recognised worldwide than Cvijić ever was. Tesla, Pupin and Milanković are in a league of their own. For the remaining spot we can find someone with a stronger international profile than Cvijić. I proposed Mileva Marić, but I'm open for some other names.

6. Collages for writers and poets. I agree that two collages can feel cluttered. My reasoning for adding poets collage was simply that excluding poets while highlighting prose writers would underrepresent a field in which Serbs have produced some of their most acclaimed authors. That said I’m open to fix it, whether a combined writers and poets collage with careful selection or any other layout that avoids giving the impression that poetry is secondary.

7. Battle of Cer and Stone Flower images. I still think that from the perspective of Serbian history itself the Serbian Revolution is more consequential than any event from World War I, it is literally the moment modern Serbia was born and one image from that period should be present in the article. As for Stone Flower, I have no objection if you prefer the previous image. The current image shows the sculpture from a straightforward angle in diiference to previous image that makes it impossible for the reader to fully grasp the sculpture's actual form and proportions, not to mention image being a bit too artistic for an encyclopaedic article.

8. “Common cultural heritage”. I think it is redundant to repeat same sentence in lead and then again down the article. Not to mention that shared cultural heritage is inherent to each and every ethnic group - that is what makes them, among other things, an ethnic group.

9. Momčilo Tapavica. Being the first Olympic medalist is historically interesting, but it is not by itself a strong enough criteria for inclusion otherwise we would have to list practically every Serbian Olympic medalist. His overall notability and impact are minor, he has very little presence beyond that single Olympic participation and is virtually unknown among Serbs nowadays. I consider his inclusion more a matter of trivia than genuine notability. But again, if you insist on mentioning Tapavica, I am fine with that.

10. Medical specialists and PhDs. Those are not a pure scientific but rather professional achievements and are not of encyclopaedic relevance nor is a common practice in articles about other ethnic groups. Statistical claims about degrees, i.e. raw numbers without notability of the individuals are not comparable to concrete scientific achievements (major inventions, widely recognized contributions, etc.). Nation that gave the mankind likes of Tesla doesn’t need to boast around the number of people having PhD degrees. I’m certain that a neutral reader would not be impressed, in fact it would probably have the opposite effect: rather than demonstrating strength, it can be seen as insecure. Not to mention that claim about Serbian doctors performing “pioneer works” is article from the tabloid Blic that discusses a single sensational case - reported penis transplantation to a transgender woman. By the way, don’t you think, say, Romanians or Ukrainians or many others also have thousands or tens of thousands of PhD holders working abroad? Serbs are not unique or rare case in that regard. In contrast to anonymous headcounts, I have added individually notable scientists such as Tihomir Novakov and Miodrag Radulovački.

11. Serbo Seven. In my opinion, it is more of a trivia-like info but I am ok if you think they deserve to be mentioned. Often times “less is more” and we should not overextend article and fall in trap of endless listings.

12. Dositej Obradović. He was philosopher indeed, as much as was Diderot and other French Englihtment figures, there are numerous sources that can back that claim. As a matter of fact, Serbs didn’t have a modern philosopher before him at all. Maybe wording is a bit strong so I could rephrase to the more common formulation: …is regarded as the key figure of the Serbian Enlightenment and the first major Serbian philosopher of the modern era ot something like that (with source provided, of course).

Regards, Klačko (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

As for total number of population and infobox in general.

1. Total figure. If you count figures of all countries listed you come up with total figure of barely 8.5 million and there are no countries left unlisted (except those with miniscule Serb population) so there’s no much to go upwards. Those are the official and latest data, backed by verifiable source for each and every country listed. There are two reasons why it should be rounded on 9 million.

First, there were around 456,000 people in the last Serbian census who either didn’t declare their ethnicity or whose data were taken from administrative registers/databases. If you extrapolate the share of Serbs in the general population to this figure of 456,000, you come up with ~360,000. On top of that, you have the “Yugoslav American” ancestry classification in American censuses: in 2023, some 203k people reported this ancestry, and many, if not the majority, among them were of ethnic Serb origin (it is doubtful that those of Croat, Slovene, Kosovo Albanian, or Vojvodina Hungarian origin gave prominence to Yugoslav over their primary ancestries; this leaves a pool of Serbs, Bosniaks, Macedonians, and Montenegrins, where Serbs are the overwhelming majority). The same goes for “Yugoslav Canadians”, but they are of minor size compared to Yugoslav Americans (only 30k). You may notice that I have added footnotes in the infobox, placed next to the figures for Serbia and the United States, in order to explain these nuances. So the calculation is simple: 8.5m + 360k + 100/150k, and that is it – the maximum possible figure. I would be more than happy to live in a world where I can reliably claim 10 million or even higher figure as a worldwide total for Serbs, and I could even find some obscure sources to back that claim, but we don’t need inflated numbers.

Second, this method of displaying the rounded figure which is the sum of the cited figures (with a footnote saying “total figure is sum of all referenced populations”), has been the long-standing, stable practice on this article for at least 4-5 years, if not longer. We should continue that practice as per WP:CALC, which explicitly allows routine calculation when based on cited numbers. It is not original research as Theonewithreason implied - it is just routine addition of cited numbers. The only difference now is that the figures no longer add up to 10 million (nor did they before; it was more like 9.3–9.5 million but that is another story now) but to 9 million at most.

2. Infobox structure. We already discussed this recently. The infobox is a rather statistical thing with no other considerations whatsoever. The “Regions with significant populations” section is a purely statistical parameter; it says “…significant populations” and not native, historically important, etc. populations, so there is only one criteria to be taken into account, the numerical one. Otherwise it would not make sense to include Montenegro and exclude Germany, Austria, and so forth, which have larger ethnic Serb populations. I agree with you about historical considerations; I tried to make the distinction through the native/diaspora division, but it just didn’t sit well. I gave it time and a chance, but it looked really awkward from the beginning. Besides, Serbia and BiH are also native and would thus be excluded, so the list for other countries should be without any divisions, as is standard in other articles.

Regards, Klačko (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

In order not to write another wall of text, and so that we can move efficiently and finish the work on the article before the New Year and Christmas holidays, I suggest this:

1) Start making changes and tweaks per the TP. After that, I'm going to make some changes only after you finish your part, and after that we can review and have another round of debate. I take your point about the number of PhD holders abroad. On the other hand, I disagree about Cvijić. He was internationally recognised, and he was not only a prolific scholar but also a reformer of university education; basically, he is on the level of Vuk Karadžić in his field. Mileva Marić Einstein is more popular but she is not more notable. Dositej Obradović being the first philosopher needs to be referenced or perhaps reworded.In order to have a number of prolific philosophers, a society needs stability and a certain level of democracy. I think we can add Tapavica under /Sports/, about Serbs representing other nations, something short and on point.

2) About the total number: I understand your arguments and points. In my opinion, instead of the previously stable c. 10 million figure, we could go lower, with the middle ground being 9.5 million. That seems like a reasonable compromise. I also disagree with the 11 million figure. — Sadko (words are wind) 19:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Deal.

Two more things...

As for the total number in the infobox, we shouldn't turn this into an auction. Nine million is the absolute maximum we can reasonably round to. That figure already takes into account 8.5 million from the referenced populations, plus some room for growth through the undeclared/unknown ethnicity in Serbia and a portion of Yugoslav Americans. There's simply nothing more we can realistically add. In other Balkan countries with significant Serb populations, there's no equivalent to Serbia's 8% of total population going under "undeclared"/"unknown" categories that we can cling to and "extract" some undeclared Serbs, and in the diaspora there's no group comparable to Yugoslav Americans (Canadian Americans are minor exception with 30k); across European countries, the Yugoslav option was replaced by individual nationalities a long time ago so there's no pool to draw more Serbs from there either.

I'm really curious to know what is problematic in that rewording you mentioned: "You have completely reworded this sentence, and not for the better: A) With the decline of the Serbian state of Duklja in the late 11th century, Raška separated from it and replaced it as the most powerful Serbian state. B) With the collapse of Duklja in the late 12th century, Raška gained independence and succeeded it as the most powerful Serbian polity? Klačko (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I was just trying to come up with a solution that would be a “middle ground.” We should also check reliable sources, like books, to compare and contrast. Let’s see if other editors would like to weigh in. If needed, we can start an RfC on the topic, and that will be it. Maybe my comments sound a bit too sharp; I thought the style could be better, but it’s okay. All in all, I’ll wait for your upcoming tweaks, and then I’ll step in, and we’ll see after that. Best. — Sadko (words are wind) 15:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Greetings, currently I am not able to participate in lengthy discussion, because of my work, so I just looked a bit into this one, and I do agree with Sadko regarding that most of the text should be restored before December 6th, so per WP:concensus I will support reverts, as for my edition on total number of Serbs, my suggestion is to restore back the figure of 10 million circa, as it is the most neutral point of view, although I support the way of thinking of editor Klacko that only official census numbers should be involved, I also believe that those presented numbers are not from all countries, also in the last census lots of Serbs did not declared ethnicity, there are lots of Serbs that work in EU that did not registered, like the official estimation of Serbs just around Paris today is 90 000- etc the sources that I encountered usually mentioned 11 million Serbs even this one I posted which is verifiable, there are sources like this one [] (all though I would never put it in the article since it is a newspaper article not a official census) which mentions 12 million, a figure that also exists, so my idea was to put a something between 9-11 million since I noticed there is a lot of articles about other nations, with numbers that varies a lot i.e Albanians, with estimation between 7-10 million, probably overblown one - so my suggestion is 10 million like it was before. As for other edits I do agree with Sadko that to call a Kosovo Myth just a mythologisation is wrong, the number of people with phd that was omitted is also wrong, the sentence that was before: With the decline of the Serbian state of Duklja in the late 11th century, Raška separated from it and replaced it as the most powerful Serbian state. should be restored as it explains the historical situation way better in short, lots of information is removed I dont support this.Theonewithreason (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I never thought that hard figures would be a matter of discussion.

I don’t think an RfC would be a good idea for a simple reason: there shouldn’t be democracy and voting about plain numbers. Not to mention Serbs’ soft spot for big numbers (our beloved megalomania). We should either stick to the figures referenced or credibly refute them with reliable sources.

Neither is it a fair attitude to talk about compromise or finding a middle ground in a situation when we have a total figure of 8.5 million backed by sources (with an estimated max. 0.5 million “uncharted” that would round the total figure to 9 million) and one editor says 11 million and we should compromise and look for a numerically middle figure. Either we have a verifiable and credible figure or not; every other way is nothing else but pure speculation. In a case when we have data from official statistical institutes and registers, only those are reliable, not books, not newspaper interviews, not personal opinions or takes… Otherwise, me or somebody else can come up with a figure of, say, 15 million Serbs worldwide because some “Deretić” or “Jovanka Jolić” claimed that figure in an interview to Večernje Novosti or BN Televizija did its own research which I will proudly cite as a credible source and then we go down the road of compromise and take a numerically middle figure which would be what, 12 million!?

As for @Theonewithreason's take “that those presented numbers are not from all countries”, I would like to know what countries are actually missing? Here we have referenced population for every country with a sizable ethnic Serb population (going down to those with as few as 1,000 ethnic Serbs) and there aren’t many countries left that we can even look at and search for data in this regard (e.g. there are only 7 European countries that are not listed in the infobox, and all of them have less than 1k ethnic Serbs: Finland has 702 “Serbia-born residents” as per 2023; Portugal 425 “Serbian citizens”, Ireland 343, etc.). I mean, in Mongolia or Nicaragua and dozens of other countries Serbs are probably in single digits, and there are certainly numerous countries such as, say, Lesotho and Nepal with no Serbs at all (no Hungarians at all, no ethnic Bulgarians, or ethnic Czechs for that matter). Heck, even if we assume that each country left unreferenced in the infobox (155 of them in total) has 999 ethnic Serbs, we are still talking about max. 150k more.

At the end, let me remind you that the previous stable and long-standing version (for 4–5 years) has a footnote at the bottom of the infobox with the following text: “total figure is sum of all referenced populations”. If we stick with that principle, it would be 8.5 million now (even back then the sum of all referenced populations was way lower than 10 million but obviously nobody bothered to do the math) and the only reasonable compromise that could be made is to round it to 9 million for reasons explained in my yesterday’s exchange with @Sadko in this discussion (undeclared/unknown category in the 2002 Serbian census and Yugoslav Americans). Klačko (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing megalomanic if we say that there is a bigger number of Serbs as you like to estimate, also you are obviously misinterpret information, because this is an article about Serbs not about Serbia born people, also you posted sources like the N1 regarding i.e Serbs in Austria in which they also saying that these are a lot more Serbs than represented figures, also even if we use your method of calculation the numbers of Serbs is bigger than your estimation of 1.5 million abroad (in which you obviously didn't include the whole info of people in USA) so you are here talking about Djeretic and megalomania and in the same time posting the same type of stuff. Obviously this article needs to be returned back to wp:stable previous version. Theonewithreason (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not estimating just simply doing the math. Adding figures, one by one as per WP:CALC.

Secondly, I am not misinterpreting facts, please check the figures: for Austria that you mentioned, in infobox is listed ethnic Serbs figure (figure by the Austrian Statistical institute itself, as article says) not “Serbia-born people” who are less than half the number of ethnic Serbs (141,882 in 2023). Not to mention that you made up that source/N1 article says that “there are a lot more Serbs than represented figures”, which is false, there’s nothing like that in the article whatsoever, sorry but you made that up, plain and simple.

Thirdly, I never put that figure of 1.5 million Serbs abroad, thats another fabrication. Although, there are indeed around 1.6 million Serbs abroad (not counting large/significant portion of 200k “Yugoslav Americans”) with additional 1.5 million "in the Region".

I really don’t get what are you trying to prove? That figures listed are false figures, incomplete, what else? That there are many countries not listed in the infobox that have large population of ethnic Serbs? Ok, but which ones, please tell us. In infobox are listed all the countries down to 1,000 Serbs-large populations. Do you have better, more reliable sources with as up-to-date figures as possible than those already listed? If so, please provide them, I guess everybody will be more than happy to accept them and improve the article in the process.

PS - One tiny piece of info for you. Do you know who edited that stable, long-standing version of total figure in the first place? That 10 million figure that you want back and now consider sancrosanct? It was me. Go check View History and look for date 16-9-2018. Regards, Klačko (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@Sadko: I made the tweaks according to the TP discussion and incorporated most of your objections. What basically remains are potential improvements to the images and question whether there should be separate collages for writers and poets.

@Theonewithreason: As for your invoking WP:STABLE please be aware that WP:STABLE page itself makes it clear that a "long-standing" or "stable" version cannot be used as a basis for influencing editing decisions and should not be taken into consideration in content disputes. According to the page:

Restoring the article to a stable version is not required, nor is it encouraged by any policy or guideline.

Outside of the limited administrative context, a "stable version" or "status quo version" is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute.

Maintaining a stable version is, by itself, not a valid reason to revert or dispute edits, and should never be used as a justification to engage in edit warring.

Stable versions are not superior or preferred to disputed edits in any way.

Boldly making changes to articles is encouraged as a matter of policy, and obstructing good faith edits for the sake of preserving "stable" content or page revisions is a form of disruptive editing.

Editors involved in content disputes or edit wars should focus on resolving the dispute rather than preserving the stable version of a page

Editors who persistently attempt to enforce a stable version of a page may be blocked from editing without warning.

Regards, Klačko (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@Klačko: you should be aware that discussions on tp should be exclusively regarding the subject, calling Serbs megalomaniacs and insulting other editors breaks every single rule of wp:civility so you can also be blocked for such behaviour, so those treats you are posting can easily go other way, as for your wp:calc there are numerous sources that are disagreeing with your estimation, I didnt revert your estimation since we last time discussed and you are still pinging me with treats okay then lets discuss your bold editing. Were those edits in actual good faith? You made a lots of changes in several articles, but somehow in several where you were contributing like the Serbs of Croatia article you barely made any positive improvements and this article really needs to be rewritten from scratch since there are lots of cited authors that dont have place on wikipedia some of which didn't even passed wp:rsn, but are still there, so to be bold is not something what I would call what you are doing. Theonewithreason (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Let's focus on the work ahead, please.

I'm still in favor of 9-10 million in the infobox.

A quick recap:

1) All illustrations have been fixed and, in my opinion, significantly improved. It is boring and unencyclopedic to include multiple collages of notable people. I have carefully selected high-quality, valuable images. A number of articles about notable representatives of the nation are in poor condition, and we are not doing ourselves any favors by foregrounding them. Paja Jovanović is already linked in the History section. The work of Nadežda Petrović is featured in the Serbia article.

2) I have linked articles about the diaspora in the infobox, as seen on other articles.

3) I've added new and relevant information.

4) I have changed the titles of some paragraphs. “Notable people” is not a particularly encyclopedic heading, especially since several sections, such as Art and Literature, do not focus solely on individual achievements. I believe the new organization of sections works well. — Sadko (words are wind) 01:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Sadko:

1) "Notable people"/Sectioning: In my opinion, your arguments for restructuring the paragraphs are not well-grounded. First, what is the point of your claim that "Notable people" is not a particularly encyclopedic heading? What exactly do you mean by that? Second, your assertion that this is especially true since several sections, such as Art and Literature, do not focus solely on individual achievements does not hold up. In the Arts section, 13 out of 15 sentences are exclusively about individuals and their personal achievements (of the remaining two, one is a redundant introductory sentence, leaving essentially just one sentence out of 14 that is not individual-focused). In the Literature section, only 3 out of 12 sentences are not centered on individuals. In all the other sections (Cinema, Music, Philosophy, Science, and Sport), virtually every sentence concerns prominent individuals and their accomplishments. To put this in perspective: out of a total of 74 sentences across these sections, only 4 or 5 (depending on whether we exclude the redundant introductory sentence in Arts) are not focused on prominent individuals - that is 5% of the total content. When 95% of the text is devoted to prominent individuals and their achievements, it seems reasonable to reconsider grouping it under a "Notable people" section, subdivided by field (Arts, Literature, Music, Cinema, Science, Sports, etc.), as it was before your edit. This aspect of the article's general organization and sectioning is far more consequential than issues like images or other minor details, on which we have spent considerably more time discussing. By contrast, we have barely touched on this structural question. I would therefore like to hear more detailed arguments from you on this point, particularly given that 95% of the content concerns individuals and their personal achievements. I already told you erlier that it seems to me that you may be missing a key distinction here: the purpose of this article is not to present the contributions of the nation (that is the role of the Serbia article), but rather to highlight the accomplishments of the Serb people through their most prominent individuals - achievements that can be personally attributed to the great men and women of this particular ethnic group.

2) Total population figure: I've written extensive, "War and Peace"-length arguments in this discussion about the 9 million figure, thoroughly addressing every possible angle, yet I'm not receiving any serious counter-arguments whatsoever as to why should we go with some higher figure. We can't rely on gut feelings on this one. Let me remind you, as I did with @Theonewithreason, that I was the one who back in 2018 edited that 10 million figure that you are clinging to. Not to mention that throughout the entire period, there was a footnote in the infobox stating: total figure is the sum of all referenced populations. If we stick to that principle, the current total would be 8.5 million, or 8-9 million if you prefer a range. I rounded up to 9 million for reasons I've already explained in detail.

3) Images: As for the images, although I understand the potential need to reduce image congestion, I have some issues about your edits. I'm fine with keeping only Mokranjac in the Music section, and I could grudgingly accept removing the collage of poets. I am also ok with images that replaced collage in Arts section (although there's no need for two images as it creates unnecessary clutter, one with Marina Abramović would be just fine). However, I believe removing the collage in the Cinema section represents a serious downgrade. That collage featured internationally recognized cinematic figures: two Hollywood stars (from different eras), one of the most acclaimed European directors of all time (at least in terms of awards), and one of the very few domestic actors with a significant international (European) career. It was replaced by a single photo of actors and actresses (leaving one of them unacknowledged, which is problematic in itself) most of whom, with the exception of Bata Živojinović, are virtually unknown outside the former Yugoslavia. Heck, if we retain a collage of notable athletes, why can't we do the same for cinema?

4) Miscellaneous: I believe the image of the wolf in the Names section should not have been removed. It was an emblematic photo accompanied by a good explanation of animal's connection to Serbs. Additionally, the sentence added to the Sports section is, in my opinion, irrelevant there and would fit better in a section on traditions (if it needs to be included at all). Rope-pulling and etc., while a proto-sports, don't qualify as a sport in the modern sense and is more accurately described as a folklore-like tradition, but overall the relevance of whole sentence to be included in the article is questionable.

Regards, Klačko (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

• “Notable people” appears to be an original construct. Another approach would be to include “Arts”, “Music”, etc. under “Culture”, as in Polish people. “Notable people” is redundant and stylistically weak. I have not seen this structure used in comparable articles. Moreover, frescoes and epic songs were not created by identifiable individuals, and some athletes are notable primarily for their contribution to the national team rather than individual distinction. If you think that the information about folk sports, if I can call it that, does not belong under “Sports,” please move it to “Traditions.” I included it because it provides a good introduction to the section and shows that there was a long history of sporting activities before the emergence of modern sports.
• Using artworks to illustrate the “Arts” section isn't unusual; see Japanese people for a similar model. Both painting and performance art can be included without clutter, as they are distinct art forms. The painting of Mokranjac can be credited to Uroš Predić, which would be a good reference. The wolf image, including its description and source, was added by me; however, it is generic, and we currently lack sufficient contextual information on the double-headed eagle or Ramonda nathaliae, which bugs me. As for Jovovich, her inclusion is debatable: she may be of Serb origin, but her identification as a Serb is unclear. I would support restoring the former collage and including Milena Dravić instead, or Karl Malden, who openly identified as Serbian, unlike Jovovich. Consider removing the map showing the Serbian diaspora and finding an alternative illustration. Anything else?
• Relying solely on CALC is insufficient. Some sources cite figures of 10 million or even 11 million; see the Rastko source added under the “Sports” section. Comparable articles such as Slovaks, Czechs, and Albanians use multiple methodologies. There is a point at which a strictly hyper-rational approach becomes counterproductive, and a reasonable compromise is necessary; this is something I have previously attempted to convey.
• Nota bene: Repeated remarks such as “I’ve explained this to you before” do not improve the quality of discussion and should be avoided. Likewise, please, the use of bold, underlining, or similar emphasis is discouraged. Thanks for the quick rsp. Best. — Sadko (words are wind) 13:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Sadko:

  1) What can we rely on if not on official figures and sources? Any other way would be completely arbitrary and this is not hyper-rational approach but a common sense. Rastko source does indeed cite figure of 10 million, but here’s the glitch: that figure is based on the 1991 Yugoslav census which counted some 8.5 million Serbs in former Yugoslavia (compared to today’s 6.7 million according to official censuses). That is clearly acknowledged in the “Bibliografy” section all the way down the Rastko article when it says under 1.: Popis stanovnistva 1991, 1-7, Beograd, 1993. Reasonable compromise is always desirable and I demonstarted that by accepting numerous of your objections even though I had reservations about them. However, there are no two reasonable positions to bridge here: hard data on one side and speculation on the other, leaving no reasonable middle ground to find. Forcing a compromise merely for the sake of having one would be counterproductive, not my “hyper-rational” approach. I mean, we have a situation in which there is a total figure of 8.5 million backed by sources (although I rounded it up to 9 million which should count as my fault since it is a clear deviation from WP:CALC), yet you provide the Rastko source which claims 10 million based on a Yugoslav census data from 35 years ago, @Theonewithreason provides an unverifiable source that says 11 million, and we should compromise on what - to simply pick a numerical middle figure?!

  2) First, “Notable people” is not an original construct, as you claim, on the contrary, it appears in articles on various ethnic groups. Please check the Czechs article, one of the very articles you referred to in your response. Second, your take that some athletes are notable primarily for their contribution to the national team rather than individual distinction is self-contradictory: they would not be called up to the NT if not for their personal accomplishments. Moreover, in the article they are listed solely by their individual achievements, not the successes of the NT (the successes of NTs and clubs are up for the Sports section of the Serbia article to acknowledge). Grouping these subsections under Notable People would not be redundant, rather it would flow naturally with the rest of the article and create a coherent structure. The Culture section should stay as it is and be reserved for broader cultural practices of the ethnic group as a whole (religion and religious practices, language usage, names, symbols, and various traditions), while the accomplishments of the most prominent individuals should belong under a Notable People section. Serbs as a whole did not invent alternating current, that was a certain individual named Tesla, nor was the painting The Great Migration of Serbs or Novak’s 24 Grand Slams a collective endeavour of Serbs as an ethnic group. All those achievements are clearly attributed in the article to prominent individuals and I have yet to see a convincing rationale for not reflecting that fact (the fact that almost all the content concerns notable individuals) in the article’s structure by grouping it under a Notable People section. Sadko, please do not take this as an offence, I greatly appreciate your work on Wikipedia and often seek your help in various situations here, however, it seems to me that on this topic you are constantly moving the goalposts: initially, your arguments centered on the heading not being encyclopaedic (what you mean by that, is there a clear definition or distinction what is or what is not encyclopedic?) and on the content not focusing solely on individuals and their achievements (I then demonstrated that “solely” in this case means 95%, if not more, of the content, which can reasonably be regarded as solely), and now you claim it is an original construct (which it clearly is not) or raise the issue of national teams. One could keep moving the goalposts like this indefinitely when previous arguments do not hold up. Regards, Klačko (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

• No, dear fellow editor, I’m not “changing the scope”; I was simply exploring new angles and sharing my views, in response to and in accordance with feedback, while analyzing your viewpoints. Perfectly normal, I believe.
• As a matter of fact, I’ve checked pretty much every article about ethnic groups in Europe, including ethnic groups without their own state, as well as many other ethnic groups worldwide; the total number is now close to 100. No other Balkan nation has this sort of organization. Almost no other European nation has it either, with the exception of the Czechs. Most articles place everything under “Culture”. You previously tweaked the infobox, claiming that it was an original invention, so it seems only logical to follow that line of thinking. Interestingly enough, some articles do not include anything about arts, literature, and the like, while others go into great detail.
• I’ve advised from day one that we should follow sources, not only CALC. For example, Geopolitical Turmoil in the Balkans and Eastern Mediterranean (2023) states that Serbs in the Balkans number 8 million. This would mean that a total number between 9 and 10 million is correct. Next, this diaspora-run portal states that there are 4 million Serbs outside of Serbia. In addition, the total number of Serbs in Germany might be double what we have in the census, according to N1. All things considered, I’ve argued for the 9–10 million range, which seems fair and neutral. I’m not sure why this is such a big obstacle.
• So, what did we say about the images? We agreed to restore the collage for Cinema. Anything else? Thanks. — Sadko (words are wind) 00:32, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

• @Sadko:I strongly believe you should have not restructure paragraphs and change Notable people section until issue about it is resolved, because we clearly have an issue here. Yes, I did change the formatting at the first place but only after my edit you raised the issue about that and until it is resolved it should not have been changed, I really think you shouldn’t have done so. Otherwise I feel compelled to revert it back. I would be glad if I got this wrong, but our discussion about this topic has felt rather one-sided: you throw a take (1. heading not being encyclopaedic, 2. content not solely focused on individuals 3. original construct), I deconstruct it argumentatively, and you neither try to prove me wrong or counterargument my points, instead you simply move on to another take - yes, you might view this as exploring new angles but perhaps you should first support your previous points with arguments before introducing others. For instance, you could start with the fact that 95% of the total content is exclusively about notable individuals and their achievements - I am still waiting to hear credible counterargument as to why shouldn't we acknowledge this fact in sectioning? Yes, Czechs have Notable people section and as for your take that no Balkan nation/ethnicity have this sort of organization, please check Yugoslavs article. In any case, the entire argument about the “original construct” collapses if even one article uses the same structure - and there is at least one such case in the Balkans, another in Europe, and others elsewhere in the world. Not to mention that your current position is a complete reversal of your earlier position: My advice is not to strictly follow a supposed “standard” used in articles about other ethnic groups. These standards have changed rapidly over the years, and I am sure you have noticed the same. These are your words from 8 December in this very discussion. One more thing: you cannot draw a parallel with my tweak in the infobox, since my initial edit was indeed an original invention (there’s not a single article with the infobox structure like Native/Diaspora, not a single one - I dare you to find just one). That is exactly why I reverted it.
• I try to follow the principle stated in an infobox footnote (the total figure is the sum of all referenced populations) that has been present there the entire time, with which no one has raised an issue before (not even now), and which aligns with WP:CALC. If we stick to that principle the total figure is 8.5 million. Thinking about it now, I'm tempted to go strictly with the 8.5 million figure rather than 9 million, to which I rounded in a clear deviation from WP:CALC. I have no issue with sources for the total figure if they are: 1. reliable, 2. verifiable, and 3. as up to date as possible. You first referred to that Rastko source, which is verifiable but not up to date, since it is largely based on data from the 1991 Yugoslav Census which recorded some 1.6 million more Serbs than were registered in the last censuses in ex-Yu countries. Then you cited Geopolitical Turmoil in the Balkans and Eastern Mediterranean, which does not meet Wikipedia criteria for verifiability: the content of the book is not accessible, nor is there an exact quote, inline citation, or excerpt that we can examine. Not to mention that the alleged figure of 8 million Serbs in the Balkans is clearly contradicted by data from official censuses in Balkan countries. When we weigh official data from statistical institutes against some author's claim in a book, the choice is clear. Then you cited that rather obscure diaspora portal (page is dated to 2017), which is verifiable but not reliable. A brief look reveals how unreliable the source is: it claims there is a million ethnic Serbs in the U.S. alone, although no official U.S. census has ever recorded more than 200,000 people with Serb ancestry (even if we add a significant portion of those declaring Yugoslav ancestry, the total figure is three to four times lower than claimed there). As for the number of Serbs in Germany, we should always stick to official figures when possible; in their absence, we can refer to unofficial sources such as estimates from N1 articles (as is the case for Austria). But for Germany, we have an official figure (please check the table here) based on this very encompassing definition: The Federal Statistical Office defines persons with a migrant background as all persons who migrated to the present area of the Federal Republic of Germany after 1949, plus all foreign nationals born in Germany and all persons born in Germany as German nationals with at least one parent who migrated to Germany or was born in Germany as a foreign national.
• I agree to restore the cinema collage, but I still believe Milla Jovovich is a better choice than Milena Dravić: she is far more globally recognized (and since this article is on English Wikipedia, it is oriented toward a global audience) and regarding her ethnic identity, she allegedly speaks fluent Serbian, as per the cited source - that is, in my opinion, a sufficient ethnic marker. Heck, if we included Ivo Andrić, who was born to ethnic Croat parents, we can certainly include Jovovich, whose father was undoubtedly an ethnic Serb. I also still think two battle images (Mišar and Cer) are excessive, one is enough, I’ve explained why I put Mišar but I leave it up to you to decide which one should be left. I am all for restoring wolf image, you did a great contribution to the article there, no matter that it is indeed a generic image connection to Serbs is deeply rooted. Having images of two churches feels redundant: it’s a pity we don’t have image of Saint Sava, who is arguably the most consequential figure in our entire history. It would make sense to include both an image of Saint Sava (as the patron saint of the Serbs) and the Church of Saint Sava (the most emblematic Serbian Orthodox church) - this wouldn’t be duplication but rather a meaningful link between the patron saint and the most emblematic church which happened to be built on the site where his remains were burned. I think diaspora map should stay also. Still think we should remove that Šumanović painting and leave Abramović image. Regards, Klačko (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

• No, I shouldn’t restore it, because this was something recently introduced by yourself, and it was opposed by the two sole participants in this debate, excluding you. With an in-depth change like that, which is contested to some degree, most other editors would simply revert it entirely. That’s how it works in general, the last time I checked, sorry.
  • Yugoslavs have a “Notable people” section because it is literally a list. For that article, in its current condition, it is appropriate. There is nothing comparable to our situation; that is a false analogy.
• Please try to be more concise and do not underline “big points”; this is not appropriate. I have, and will continue to have, a lot of patience, but walls of text start to get old very quickly.
• There is nothing contradictory there. I simply think that one was a good “invention” and the other was not. All three of my points that you’ve quoted still stand, to a greater or lesser degree.
• I can accept and understand the point that the Rastko source is not up to date. On the other hand, the book I’ve quoted can be checked; it is reliable, and I have checked it personally. Maybe it is not available for viewing from your location, I’m not sure. My point is: search for books and other reliable sources, not just do the math. Try not to go full-in WP:POINT here and let's work on it; it can be tempting.
• Speaking Serbian or any other language does not automatically imply that a person belongs to that ethnic group. Mr. Andrić has stated what is his identity clearly; Mrs. Jovocich did not. Previously, you removed Predić’s painting The Kosovo Maiden; now the Patriarchate of Peć (monastery) is being suggested for removal, not to mention the added sentence about the Kosovo Myth being a source of national megalomania. I’m not sure where this is going, maybe I do no see it clearly. Next, what logical sense is there in having a generic photo of a wolf while removing the image referencing the Battle of Cer? Or in keeping a map of the diaspora, which is already in the infobox, while removing images showing slava (as done previously) or an image of Šumanović’s monumental work? To put it simply, I disagree with most other suggestions regarding illustrations. I'm willing to work on it patiently, and I’m looking forward to other editors participating in this; so far, it’s just three editors. What is your suggestion here, compromise on images, do RfC, smth. else? Best. — Sadko (words are wind) 15:42, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  The point is that you shouldn’t go changing the sectioning and trying to enforce your view until there is some kind of agreement. Instead, you decided two days ago to rather sneak in those fundamental changes among some minor changes. You have no authority whatsoever to prevent other editors, in this case me, from making in-depth changes; they are encouraged as a matter of policy, and obstructing or reverting good-faith in-depth changes is a form of disruptive editing as per WP:STABLE (one that you were invoking throughout this whole discussion). Therefore, sorry, but no, it doesn’t work in general like you tried to present. If my good-faith in-depth changes are contested, we should try to reach an agreement through discussion rather than simply reverting, as this would count as disruptive editing per not only WP:STABLE but also WP:BRD. Yes, you could’ve reverted my initial edit, and by doing so almost certainly caused an edit war that would end up being resolved by a neutral administrator/editors through discussion on this talk page or elsewhere - and I am confident in the strength of my arguments in that potential process. Instead, I believe both of us don’t want to go down that road when we can resolve this by ourselves on this TP if there’s a basic mutual will to objectively weigh each other’s arguments. Let me remind you that on 9 December we agreed to make changes and further edits as per discussions and mutual inputs here on the TP - that was your proposition, which I gladly accepted. Now it seems like it bothers you to engage in the lengthy process of trying to reach some common stance (since you constantly point out my walls of text, etc.), and that you instead prefer to push your view no matter what. I have shown my willingness to accept your arguments even when I had some deep reservations about them and to let you have it your way. I am yet to see signs of your willingness to accept some of my basic arguments, barring cosmetic concessions (images et al.).

  PS - There is no Wiki guidelines on underlining or bolding texts on TP. I thought it appropriate to highlight blatant inconsistency in your argumentation. I am sorry if that offended you, that was not my intention. Klačko (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

• Not at all. Did you, please, read WP:BRD? It's quite the opposite. WP:STATUSQUO also comes to mind. Alas, so far only 3 editors have been involved; if we were to judge by that, there's no WP:CONSENSUS for the new version. It might change in the future. I've decided to follow WP:MASSR and WP:PARTR and ofc. WP:FAITH; therefore, this lengthy topic. This is a content dispute; you're thinking about WP:3O and WP:DRN, if I understood you correctly. See WP:SHOUT about bold and underline; it should be seldomly used. Last but not least, about walls of text, please see WP:MWOT and WP:KEEPCONCISE.
• That's enough about local policies; just wanted to clarify. To continue where we've stopped, current disputes are: 1) "Notable people" as the title or not. 2) The number of the population in the infobox. 3) Illustrations: which images to remove and which to keep. With this being half finished, with a number of "middle" ways on both sides so far (let's keep in mind that we are discussing changes to the newly introduced version, not the old one, and that numerous changes were accepted at the beginning). Theonwithereason, do you happen to have any new ideas here? Ty. for the shorter response and assuming good faith, Klačko. — Sadko (words are wind) 01:43, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

How about this collage? — Sadko (words are wind) 17:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Prominent cinematic figures (clockwise from top left): actors Karl Malden, Miki Manojlović, Rade Šerbedžija and filmmaker Emir Kusturica.

• @Sadko: sorry for being late on answering I didn’t have much time for Wiki in last couple of days.
• For Notable people section we should maybe agree to try WP:DRN, and explain our cases there, what do you think? But maybe before going down that road, I think you should try at least to adress my fundamental point why shouldn't we acknowledge in sectioning the fact that 95% of the total content is exclusively about notable individuals and their achievements.
• The book you've quoted cannot be checked (Geopolitical Turmoil in the Balkans and Eastern Mediterranean), as it simply is not accessible - my location is neither in Russia nor in China nor in Belarus or North Korea, but most probably the same as yours, and it is not available for viewing. Maybe you can provide me with a link that worked for you so I can access the content… So, at the moment, the source is not verifiable, not to mention it doesn't claim the total figure of Serbs worldwide being 10 million. You advise me not to do the math (although I strictly follow WP:CALC, which cannot be simplified to "doing the math"), but you are again not being consistent since you are the one actually engaging in hypothetical adding up of figures just to prove your point. To quote you: book states that Serbs in the Balkans number 8 million. This would mean that a total number between 9 and 10 million is correct. If you insist on putting that figure of 10 million in the infobox, I urge/beg you to find just one source that reliably claims the total figure of Serbs worldwide being 10 million. Just one, and I will be more than happy to agree. But that source should be reliable, verifiable, and as up to date as possible (post-2020, when most recent censuses were held). For the total population figure, I see three possible outcomes: 1) to put 8.5 million as per WP:CALC; 2) add the 10 million figure and make the range 8.5-10 million (the first figure in the range representing the WP:CALC approach, which has been a long-standing principle in this particular article; the second figure backed by a reliable/verifiable/up-to-date source); 3) to stay as it is now.
• I agree to restore the cinema collage, although I think there should be at least one actress. I proposed Milla Jovovich - being of Serb origin (i.e., partial Serb ancestry) is good enough in my opinion. Insisting on self-identification as Serb is raising the bar a bit too high (if you follow that principle, Rade Šerbedžija self-identifies as Yugoslav, not Serb, even though his ethnic origins are as clear as they can be). But if you still insist on Milena Dravić, I will grudgingly agree. I do not insist on restoring the wolf image but simply gave my opinion that it was a great addition to the article. If you think the fact that the image is generic outweighs the deeply rooted connection of that animal to Serb tradition (names, etc.) and the need for an image in the Names subsection, I will again, albeit heavy-heartedly, agree with you. The reason why I think the map of the ethnic Serb population worldwide should stay in the Demographics section is that only there is the explanation of the map visible: the color shades correspond to the size of the population, as explained - we don’t have that possibility in the infobox. I am still of the opinion that two battle images are excessive; please consider removing one. I am fine if you choose to remove Mišar. I never said that the Kosovo Myth is a source of national megalomania - sorry, but that’s a pure fabrication on your part. My sole intention was to present the myth as the national myth of the Serbs, the kind of myth that many nations/ethnicities have (Alexander Nevsky and the Battle of Kulikovo for Russians, Jeanne d'Arc for the French, the Alamo for Americans, etc.). I think the sentence about rope-pulling and stone-throwing should be removed. We simply don't have emblematic equivalents of Japanese sumo wrestling, Spanish corrida, or French pétanque - those traditional games mentioned are not uniquely ours but can be found from the Scottish Highlands to the steppes of Ukraine and Russia, not to mention other Balkan ethnicities. Finally, I am proposing to restore my image for the Religion section that included Saint Sava (as the patron saint of the Serbs and arguably the most consequential figure in our history) and the Church of Saint Sava (the most emblematic Serbian Orthodox church and one of the largest Orthodox churches in the world). Your removal explanation that both motifs have already been presented in a single image; therefore, it is not an improvement is not correct. There is no image of Saint Sava in that image of the Church of Saint Sava. Having both the image of the saint and the church dedicated to him would not be duplication but rather a meaningful link between the patron saint and the most emblematic church, which happens to be built on the site where his remains were burned - a unique story with no counterpart in any other ethnic group in the world. Regards, Klačko (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Left: Fresco of Saint Sava, the traditional patron saint of the Serbs
Right: Church of Saint Sava, one of the largest Orthodox churches in the world

• No issues. It's the holiday season; I'm in no rush and will not reply rapidly.
• I've uploaded the page from the book for you to check and confirm.
  • Here are four more sources on this topic: 1, 2, 3, 4. At least two of these media outlets are considered to be WP:RS on Wikipedia.
  • A 9–10 million or 8.5–10 million range could be accepted. By the way, Scottish people is an interesting read.
• “Notable people” is a hard no from me, and I have previously shown that it is pretty much never used in such a context. If you wish, you can start another RfC about it.
• You are correct; the word you used was mythomania. Pretty similar.
• Regarding the images, agreed to remove the Battle of Mišar image.
  • Agreed to add a Saint Sava–Temple of Saint Sava collage. I’ve given it some thought, and it’s a good idea, as it forms a complete narrative. Perhaps we could find a different depiction of the national saint. I'll add the image of the Patriarchate of Peć (monastery) to other articles.
  • * I'm not sure why there is insistence that one woman must be included in the collage. A person's merit should be the main guideline. I would pick Dravić over Jovovich any day. Šerbedžija is a Serb; he has said it himself numerous times, and even joked about it. So let's see: Šerbedžija or Dravić or?
• I am unable to see how “not being unique” is an argument for the removal of one simple sentence about folk sports. There are others that could be mentioned as well, such as šore or korida. If you wish to rephrase, improve, or add references, by all means. Best. — Sadko (words are wind) 19:25, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

• @Sadko: I can't access the page you uploaded. I don't really know what the problem is (maybe some extension/anti-virus I have on my computer), although I thank you for making the additional effort to upload the image. Nevertheless, that source would not be helpful anyways, since we need a reliable source that states there are 10 million Serbs worldwide, one we can cite as an upper figure in the range. Not to mention the book claims there are about 8 million Serbs in the Balkans - figure clearly contradicted by official census data from Balkan countries, at least 1 million fewer Serbs than the book asserts.
• As for the other sources, I thoroughly analyzed all four. In fact, there are really only three sources, since Mondo clearly refers in its article to Srbijadanas analysis. Not a single one of those three sources claims a 10 million total figure. If we agree to go with a range and to have 10 million as the upper figure (the lower being 8.5 million as per WP:CALC), we need a reliable source that explicitly claims that figure (as per WP:RS). Everything else would be WP:OR. Now, on the content of these three sources. The first source, Dnevnik Juga, claims a range between 7 and 12 million Serbs, but when you aggregate all the listed data, the total figure reaches 9.1 million Serbs worldwide (with one big red flag: the claim that there are 830k Serbs in North America alone, 650k in the US, 3 times higher than official figures, and 180k in Canada, twice higher). The second source, Luftika, is not an original/primary source but refers to the webpage kragujevcani.rs claiming 11 million Serbs worldwide; however, aggregating the listed data yields 9.9 million (not to mention some of the data is outdated - they use the 2011 Serbian census, which recorded 650k more Serbs than the 2022 census, plus again that dubious 830k figure for North America, adding an excess of at least 1 million). The third source, Srbijadanas, claims a range between 9.6 and 12.5 million Serbs, but aggregation yields 9.3 million (again with the red flag of 830k in North America). So, in those three sources we have aggregated totals of 9.1 million, 9.3 million, and 9.9 million (all inflated by flawed or outdated figures), and ranges of 7-12 million, 9.6-12.5 million, and 11 million, respectively. Not to mention that none of the three sources can be considered noteworthy: two (Dnevnik Juga and Luftika) are rather obscure (Luftika refers to the even more obscure kragujevcani.rs), and Srbijadanas is more of a lightweight, tabloid-leaning news aggregator with short articles and catchy headlines focused on breaking news, celebrities, crime, and sports rather than deep analysis.
• I think that WP:DRN is a better path for resolving Notable people issue than WP:RFC, but that should wait after the holidays.
• Regarding the Kosovo Myth, I never used the word "mythomania", I really don't understand why you're insisting on something that's completely made up. My initial edit about the Kosovo Myth was: The symbolical Kosovo Myth is a Serbian national myth that has historically served as the mythomoteur of the Serb people, signifying martyrdom and defence of Serb honour and Christendom against Muslims. Maybe you confused mythomania with mythomoteur, but those two have different meanings, definition of mythomoteur is: the constitutive myth that gives an ethnic group its sense of purpose.
• There aren't many images of Saint Sava that we could use, only three frescoes from the 13th or 14th century: one from Studenica, and the other two from Mileševa and the Patriarchate of Peć.
• We should go with Milena Dravić then.
• Srećnu i uspešnu Novu godinu ti želim. Klačko (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

• The source and the uploaded image clearly state that there are 8 million Serbs in the Balkans; therefore, it goes to show that the range of 9–10 million absolutely makes sense, and it is on the lower level, in fact, when considering all the sources. I've checked on three devices; the image can be accessed. I'm not sure what the issue is on your computer.
• By all means, please, also try to search for some reliable sources; that would be much appreciated and positive. I appreciate the detailed analysis, but that doesn’t change the fact that at least one or two of those are actually reliable sources (Luftika, for example), and that there is a clear contradiction regarding the total number among different sources, which should be taken into account.
• This is a bit of a bizarre situation that we have here: you've changed the longstanding figure in the infobox, which was not agreed upon by the two sole participants in the debate besides you, and now there is the expectation that other editors provide sources, over and over again, to prove something to you, who made the change in the first place. From now on, it will be the other way around, as it should have been in the first place and as makes logical sense. Other than WP:CALC, which is absolutely not the only way to arrive at a given population number, as seen in numerous articles, you've provided next to zero WP:RS for the newly introduced number. I've checked the previous replies, and there were no sources provided, isn't that right?
• You are correct about the term used. Sorry, I double-checked it and have removed the claim from the previous reply.
• An RfC would go a longer way compared to DRN; there is a big chance that it would be closed for a number of reasons or that it would lead nowhere. Also, I've never used DRN for something like this; that would be a new one for me.
• It seems that the question of the images has pretty much been resolved; we are yet to choose the best images for the St. Sava/Temple of St. Sava collage. I'll make several options which we can analyze, or you can, after the holidays. We have several images of the Temple of Saint Sava that have been selected by Commons community members as high-quality ones. The total population number and "Notable people" remain open questions. I suggest that we first deal with the first one.
• Happy holidays, best of luck. — Sadko (words are wind) 12:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead in the meantime and made the changes we discussed. Agree to tackle the remaining issues after the holidays. Klačko (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

  • @Sadko: Hello there!
  • You refer to the 8-million figure in the Geopolitical Turmoil in the Balkans book and say that this would mean a total number between 9 and 10 million is correct, now continue by stating that this goes to show the 9-10 million range absolutely makes sense. However, this is your own synthesis, and it is prohibited to imply conclusions not explicitly stated by the source, including any synthesis or interpretation that reaches unstated conclusions, as per WP:NOR. Specifically for numerical figures such as population, it is required to use only explicitly stated values from sources. It would be the same as if I pointed you to the article on the Serbian language, which states in the infobox that there are 8.2 million speakers of Serbian, and reached the conclusion that there are a total of 9 million ethnic Serbs.
  • In this particular case, Luftika is not a reliable source, since it is not an original or primary source but instead refers to the rather obscure page kragujevcani.rs, where the referenced article is inaccessible. The Luftika article states 11 million Serbs worldwide but when you aggregate the listed data it totals to 9.9 million (not to mention some of the data is outdated - it is based on the 2011 Serbian census, which recorded 650k more Serbs than the 2022 census, plus dubious 830k figure for North America, adding an excess of at least 1 million).
  • If we recognize two different approaches (one based on WP:CALC, the other based on WP:RS) and therefore include a range in the infobox (one figure per WP:CALC, the other by WP:RS), the second figure must be supported by a reliable source that explicitly states it.
  • Yes, I changed the long-standing total figure (which happened to be introduced by me 8 years ago), but my edit to the total figure was fully in line with the stable practice on this article, as evidenced by the long-standing footnote in the infobox stating that the total figure is the sum of all referenced populations. This in turn is consistent with WP:CALC and I fully support it, and it is up to editors who dispute this long-standing approach to provide a reliable source that claims a different figure. You are reversing the burden here: it is you who insist on an approach in which the total figure must be explicitly backed by a source (which is, in principle, fine with me), not me, so it is not up to me to provide a WP:RS, but rather up to you. So far, all the sources provided have a major/structural flaws that I thoroughly explained. Regards, Klačko (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello there. Please, carefully read WP:CALC: Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible.

Two key points here: Routine calculations and consensus among editors...

From the very beginning, I supported using a ‘range’ option for the population. I believe it only makes sense; comparing and contrasting. You, on the other hand, fellow editor, mostly insisted on the figure of 9 million. Therefore, please provide reliable sources for the 9 million figure, because WP:CALC does not apply to a complicated matter in which we have vastly differing information from different sources. It was my mistake to take this for granted. Thanks in advance. — Sadko (words are wind) 13:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed with the Sadko statement, the consensus is that the range is included, also the provided RS also says that, all though the editor who is opposed rejected them. We can also make comparisons with Croatian Americans nobody is questioning the sources over there and the "mythology" about 1.2 million Croatian Americans (the number of Serbs and Croats in USA was always close btw) which is always mentioned when we edit Serb related articles, the lack of consistency is very noticeable. Theonewithreason (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Sadko:
• You are misinterpreting fairly simple sentence: Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. There's indeed a consensus that the results of the routine calculation are correct and that the total figure is a "meaningful reflection of the sources," i.e. the sum of all cited figures - you neither disputed that the basic arithmetic was done correctly nor did you dispute that it is reflection of data referenced in the sources for the countries individually listed in the infobox. As previously explained, exact sum is 8.52 million but was rounded to 9 million because it is closer to 9 than to 8, and to keep the total figure free of decimals. My entire edit on the total figure was fully in line with WP:CALC and also with the principle evidenced in that long-standing infobox footnote stating that the total figure is the sum of all referenced populations.
• I don't insist on that 9 million figure (I stated couple of times the figure should be 8.5 million) but I do insist on sticking to the long-standing principle in the article based on WP:CALC. You, on the other hand, insist on having a "range" with second figure in the range being backed by WP:RS. I was and still am perfectly fine with that and see no problem whatsoever with including another total figure, as long as the provided source is credible, verifiable, and as up to date as possible. But Sadko, if you insist on that principle, it is up to you to provide such a source, please understand that! I don't get at all your push on me to provide source on total figure. Although, speaking of which, it was me who provided sources on the ethnic Serb populations for the majority of the individually listed countries in the infobox.
• WP:CALC clearly applies here, as it has been applied for many years on this very article and which you, by the way, didn't dispute before my edit and was obviously fine with it. This issue did not suddenly become more or less complicated as a result of my edit. You could always find differing information from different sources (now, before, or in the future) and throughout the almost the decade when the article gave the total as 10 million, nobody raised issue about differing information at all. Those differing information from different sources didn't just suddenly appear when I edited the figure down to 9 million. Regards, Klačko (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Theonewithreason:
• I urge/beg you to find just one source that reliably claims the total figure of Serbs worldwide, be it 10, 11 or 12 million. Just one, and I will be more than happy to agree. But that source should be reliable, verifiable, and as up to date as possible (post-2020, when most recent censuses were held).
• Truth to be told, prior to my edit on total figure, I conducted research on my own but did not find any source on the worldwide total of Serbs that appeared sufficiently credible. Most are based on outdated census figures, while others are obscure and internally inconsistent. The core problem is that there is currently no available internet source for a global total that does not have major structural flaws. I am sure there are scholarly works or studies that are methodologically sound and provide a reliable total figure, but locating them would require a considerable amount of work. We cannot include a fundamentally flawed or compromised source merely for the sake of having one.
• Please don't get offended, but since you brought up Albanians in your initial reply and now Croats, it seems to me that the 9 million figure itself doesn't bother you as much as the fact that the total number of Serbs would end up lower than before and as a consequence would weaken Serbs' numerical superiority compared to some of our neighboring ethnic groups. I think we should not fall into the trap of turning this into a "who's-got-the-bigger-one" contest but should present the data as it is. There's no doubt that the numbers for Croatian Americans and Croats in general are inflated, but I really don’t care about content concerning them - my sole focus is Serbs- and Serbia-related content in the English Wikipedia and improving it by providing the most accurate and credible information possible about us. I'm fine with letting Croats enjoy the "privilege" of having numbers that are a laughing stock at first glance - we don't need that kind of "quality" in this article. Just because they have inflated figures, I don't think we should do the same. Regards, Klačko (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Sources differ regarding the total population number, and this should be appropriately acknowledged. WP:CALC is not the policy to invoke here and never was; please read it carefully. All in all, we’re just going in circles (three participants), with far too much text. More opinions should be and will be sought. — Sadko (words are wind) 15:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)