Talk:Serbs

Serbian language - audio recording

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

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

Number of Serbs

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

Well, 11 to 12 million is more than 10 million.--2003:EE:3F2C:B542:95C1:89BD:68D3:800A (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No way. Serbian Diaspora office is not neutral source. Per Ethnologue the total number of the users of Sebian language in all the countries around the world is 8,594,866. Jingiby (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Per Vladimir Grečić HOW CAN THE SERBIAN DIASPORA CONTRIBUTE MUCH MORE TO THE DEVELOPMENT AT HOME COUNTRY? published in the BULLETIN OF THE SERBIAN GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY 2016; Original scientific paper UDC 314.74 (=163.41) DOI: 10.2298/GSGD1602063G, p. 68: it is estimated that overall, Serbia has a diaspora of 3.5 million people. By the last census Serbs in Serbia were 6 Mill. people. How did yoy calculate 12 Mill. Serbs? My calculation follwing two reliable sources above is: 8.5 to 9.5 Mill. And please, do not delete my comments and sourced info. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Serbs from BIH are not diaspora, since they are autochtone constituent people. There is over a million of them there. Serbs in former Yugoslavia nowadays number close to 8 million. The 3-4 million diaspora is from outside of Balkan, and that is figure of 11-12 million. Also, page about Croats and Albanians vastly overestimate their number, if you estimate in the way Serbs are counted here. For instance, Croats in the sense Serbs are 10 million would barely make 7 million, but somehow added 2 million of "descendants" of Croatian origin (who do not speak croatian, or rather serbo-croatian) in USA to stretch number to 7-9 million. Corresponding number of Serbs is in this way easily over 12 million, in fact, in Turkey alone, there are 9 million people who have some Serb origin (they are not included as Serbs in any count, but by the logic of count of Croatians, there would be over 20 million people of Serbian origin if counted this liberally). So, serious anti-serbian bias here, the conservative estimate and range of 11-12 million was removed by antiserbian POV editors, who are numerous. Number of 10 million just cannot stand, it is an underestimate even of the people who use only Serbian language, and many in Serbian diaspora (second generation) are not fluent Serbian speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.204.144 (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Serbs are not a nation

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

I have reverted your additions because they are unsourced. Please provide WP:RELIABLESOURCES for all your claims. Dr. K. 11:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This "idea" is so ludicrous that I won't comment on it. Do you even know the difference between Serbians and Serbs? Stop with the vandalism and pushing your POV. I understand that you think that you have a point - but you don't. Mm.srb (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I reverted to the pre edit-war version as I failed to see where in the sources "Serbian" (in English!) is discussed as a separate adjective from "Serb" (in English!). Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I've reverted your revert. The information is sourced and, upon review, reliable. It doesn't belong in the lead, but I think it's a good addition to the article. Non-English sources are allowed per WP:NONENG. One of the sources is in fact in English and discusses the use of "Serb" vs. "Serbian", though the sourced in Serbian are more verbose. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@AlexEng: - Non-English sources are allowed, yes, though English sources are preferred. However, in this particular case, we are talking about use of "Serb" and "Serbian" in English - "The adjective for the English term Serbs". I don't see where the cited sources support the English language usage here. As for Serbo-Croatian - per AJ for instance - this seems to be a contested topic. Please provide a quote (+translation - as required in WP:NOENG), from the cited sources, supporting - "The adjective for the English term Serbs (i.e. Serb in its singular form) is "Serb" and not "Serbian", which is an adjective for the noun Serbians (i.e. Serbian in its singular form) or for the noun Serbia.".Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this on talk, not via edit summaries/edit warring. This article is subject to discretionary sanctions from ArbCom. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, AlexEng, it would be a good idea to speak at least the basics the said non-English language before jumping into the edit war to keep the contentious material in. Per WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN, challenged material should stay out of the article during the dispute. Exceptional claims such as this require exceptional sources, and an Al Jazeera opinion piece hardly suffices as a RS for linguistic material on English usage, and a treatise of certain Branko Đ. Nikač titled "A few Greater Serbian forgeries" hardly inspires confidence. No such user (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Language of the sources is not important because meaning is important and not language in which something is said. It is paradoxal that "Sky is blue" is more valued as Wikipedia reference than "Der Himmel ist blau" (if published by reliable source of course). --Obsuser (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

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

I agree for the first part because pure truth is that Serbs are not a nation. Second part: I agree too, except that this distinction is far from universal in the real world because only for Serbs it is not universal, for other people distinction does exist; even other people in Serbia don't call themselves Serbs but Serbians. Only problem is that other world languages don't have word for Serbians so they use same word for both Serbs and Serbians (ru Сербы, de Serben, fr Serbes, pl Serbowie). Difference exists primarily in South Slavic languages because they know exaclty who they are talking about, citizens of Serbia or ethnic/people group. Check also where in the main body of the article Serbs are reffered to as a nation; nowhere. I suggest thus first to remove from the lede that they are a nation, and then to add back well sourced* paragraph about difference in the adjective usage (whether to the lede or down there in the new section Nomenclature or whatever we call it).

* I say well sourced because if you really checked references I added you would have found these (I will cite relevant parts, translate them as English translation in parenthesis and add explanations when needed after ndash):

• first ref, prometej.ba: Prema tom tumačenju, pridjev “srpski” vrijeđa Bošnjake i Hrvate, a pridjev “bosanski” vrijeđa Srbe, iako žive u državi koja se zove Bosna i Hercegovina. (English translation: According to that interpretation, the adjective "Serb" ("srpski") offends Bosniaks and Croats, and the adjective "Bosnian" ("bosanski") offends Serbs, although they live in a country called Bosnia and Herzegovina.) – This means that adjective Serb offends Bosniaks and Croats (as well as Romani people, Polish people and all other ethnic groups that live in Serbia) because it cannot be applied to them; they have their own native ethnic affiliation (previously mentioned, Bosniaks, Croats, Romani, Polish etc.) and calling them Serbs (because Serbs are not a nation) implies they are ethnic Serbs (Serbs by their ancestry, what is exactly goal of the historic ethnic Serbian nationalism, what is also stated in the paragraph I provided). All those peoples, Bosniaks, Croats, Romani, Polish etc. can only be called Serbians if they have passport of Serbia because they are by nationality Serbians (not Serbs).
• second ref, balkans.aljazeera.net:

Mali ogled o političkoj (zlo)upotrebi prisvojnih pridjeva sa nastavcima -ski i -čki. (English translation: Little experiment about political (mis)usage of possesive adjectives with -ski and -čki suffixes) – This supports my claim about ethnic Serbian nationalism (it should be even rephrased to ethnic-political Serbian nationalism).

Najviše zbrke, ne samo lingvističke, prave pridjevi srpski i srbijanski izvedeni iz pojmova Srbin i Srbijanac iako su njihova značenja pa i upotreba ovih riječi, barem je tako izgledalo, normirana poprilično davno i nalaze se u brojnim rječnicima uključujući i Rječnik Vuka Stefanovića Karadžića iz 1818. godine. U Vukovom Rječniku stoji da je Srbijanac “čovjek iz Srbije”, a da se pojam srbijanski odnosi na onog “koji je iz Srbije”. (English translation: The most confusion, not only linguistic one, make adjectives Serb (srpski) and Serbian (srbijanski) derived from the terms Serb and Serbian, although their meanings and the use of these words, at least it seemed, was normated quite a long time and are found in numerous dictionaries including the Dictionary of Vuk Stefanović Karadžić from 1818. In Vuk's Dictionary, it is said that the Serbian (Srbijanac) is "a man from Serbia", and that the term Serbian (srbijanski) refers to "who is from Serbia".)

Poslije Vukovog, slična objašnjenja su se pojavila i u riječnicima Broza i Ivekovića, Rječniku JAZU, Rečniku Matice srpske... Hrvatski lingvista Vatroslav Rožić je 1905. godine definisao Srbijanca kao čovjeka iz Srbije, za razliku od Srbina, što je “narodno ime”. (English translation: After Vuk's, similar explanations appeared in the Broz's and Iveković's dictionaries, Dictionary of JAZU, Dictionary of Matica Srpska... Croatian linguist Vatroslav Rožić defined Serbian (Srbijanca [nominative Srbijanac]) as a man from Serbia in 1905, unlike the Serb (Srbina [nominative Srbin]), which is a "people name".) – Here, under the people it is meant ethnic.

Na ovu temu objavljene su dvije studije profesora Miroslava Nikolića i Egona Feketea, u kojima je detaljno objašnjeno kako je do podjele došlo. “Umjesto pridjeva srpski može se upotrijebiti i pridjev srbijanski. Prvi ima šire značenje i nacionalnu konotaciju, dok se u drugom slučaju radi o teritorijalnom određenju pa se pridjev srbijanski vezuje za Srbiju. Kao što svi Srbi nisu Srbijanci tako ni svi Srbijanci (građani Srbije) nisu Srbi”, objašnjavao je dr Fekete. (English translation: Two studies of Professor Miroslav Nikolić and Egon Fekete were published on this subject, in which it was explained in detail how the division took place. "Instead of adjective Serb (srpski) one can use adjective Serbian (srbijanski). The first one has a wider meaning and a national connotation, while in the second case it is a territorial definition, so the adjective Serbian (srbijanski) is tied to Serbia. As all Serbs are not Serbians, so not all Serbians (citizens of Serbia) are Serbs," explained Dr. Fekete.) – This is wery clear; I would only say something on first one has a wider meaning and a national connotation from the quote: in SFRY national meant ethnic, so in the census it was put national when one could choose between Muslim (today Bosniak), Croat, Romani etc.; it is clear that Romani people are not a nation, so by world law one cannot have Romani nationality, only ethnic affiliation. Thus, I would rephrase this in English translation as first one has a wider meaning and a national connotation [today for most of the Serbs, and previously as political meaning used in censuses by denoting ethnicity as nationality].

U novije vrijeme, pogotovo nakon raspada zajedničkog srpskohrvatskog odnosno hrvatskosrspkog jezika iz kojeg se, usput, najprije izdvojio srpski jezik, prevagnula je skoro isključiva upotreba pridjeva srpski, ali samo u Srbiji i drugim teritorijama na kojima Srbi čine većinu. Ovaj drugi oblik, srbijanski, od tada se često i u pežorativnom smislu upotrebljava upravo u Zagrebu, Sarajevu ili Podgorici. (English translation: In recent times, especially after the breakdown of the common Serbo-Croatian or Croatian-Serbian language, from which, by the way, the Serbian language had separated first, the almost exclusive use of the adjective Serb (srpski) prevailed, but only in Serbia and other territories where the Serbs make up the majority. This other form, Serbian (srbijanski), has been used often in the pejorative sense exactly in Zagreb, Sarajevo or Podgorica.) – I would only add that pejorative was for most of the Serbs probably, not for all Serbs or Serbians when used in Zagreb, Sarajevo or Podgorica (for e.g. Bosnian newspapers and science works use regularly adjective Serbian (srbijanski) for denoting people from Serbia by nationality/citizenship, e.g. Novak Đoković etc.).

Veliku je pometnju prije nekoliko godina napravio Tomislav Nikolić, prethodnik Aleksandra Vučića u fotelji prvog čovjeka Srbije izjavom da su Srbi iz Republike Srpske za njega Bosanci, što je ponovo pokrenulo brojna identitetska pitanja. U čemu je razlika između Bosanaca i Bošnjaka? Može li neko biti Srbijanac, a da nije Srbin? Da li je Dodik srpski član Predsjedništva ili predstavnik Srba iz BiH ili samo bh. entiteta Republika Srpska? (English translation: A big uproar was made a few years ago by Tomislav Nikolić, the predecessor of Aleksandar Vučić in the armchair of the first man of Serbia by the statement that the Serbs from the Republica Srpska were Bosnians for him, which again raised a number of identity issues. What is the difference between Bosnians and Bosniaks? Can somebody be Serbian, and that he/she is not a Serb? Is Dodik a Serb member of the Presidency or a representative of Serbs from BiH or only Bosnian-Herzegovinian entity of Republica Srpska?) – Nikolić wanted to explain that by nationality, ethnic Serbs from Republica Srpska for him are Bosnians (i.e. Bosnians and Herzegovinians, as BiH is a nation). Difference between Bosnian and Bosniak is that first is a national and second ethnic affiliation. Someone can be of cource Serbian and not Serb. Dodik is Serb member of Presidency (and not Serbian), as (well as) representative of Serbs from whole BiH and not only RS (even though by BiH Constitution Serb member of the Presidency is chosen from RS, whatever it meant – I guess that he/she must be evidented there with his/her ID card etc.).

Jedan od vodećih beogradskih lingvista Ivan Klajn tim je povodom izjavio da “nigde u Evropi ne postoje ‘Francužani’ ili ‘Hrvaćani’, kao što postoje Srbijanci i Bosanci”. “Tu postoji istorijska podloga, zbog koje je došlo do razlikovanja između izraza Bosanac kao geografske odredbe i drugog, Bošnjak, kao nacionalne. Isto se odnosi na izraze Srbijanac i Srbin”, ustvrdio je Klajn potpuno zanemarivši činjenicu da građani BiH bez obzira u kom entitetu žive imaju – bosansko državljanstvo. (English translation: One of the leading Belgrade linguists, Ivan Klajn, said on that occasion that "there are no 'Francians/Frenchians' or 'Croatians' in the Europe anywhere, as there are Serbians and Bosnians." "There is a historical background, because of which distinction came up there between the term Bosnian (Bosanac) as a geographical provision and the other, Bosniak, as a national one. The same applies to the terms Serbian (Srbijanac) and Serb (Srbin)," Klajn argued, completely ignoring wholly the fact that the citizens of BiH, regardless of the entity they live, have – Bosnian citizenship.) – To correct and the other, Bosniak, as a national one again – by national, he meant here ethnic, because Bosniaks are not a nation (as it is currently stated in the English Wikipedia article here Bosniaks in the lede: "Bosniaks ... are a South Slavic nation and ethnic group inhabiting..."; here, it should be deleted nation same as here in Serbs article because both of these are only ethnic groups; difference arises with Croats (Hrvati is BSH) who are both nation and ethnic group because there is not other term to differentiate them, at least in BSH – in English, however, there is Croatians [as stated in the current article Croats in the lede], which should apply for nationality and Croats for ethnicity).

Pisac Miljenko Jergović je bio još isključiviji u svom uratku “Srbijanska glupost Hrvatske televizije” kritikujući taj medij zbog toga što Novaka Đokovića naziva srbijanskim a ne srpskim teniserom. (English translation: Writer Miljenko Jergović was even more exclusive in his worklet "The Serbian stupidity of Croatian Television" criticizing this media because Novak Đoković is called a Serbian and not a Serb tennis player.) – Difference is made again.

“Srbijanski mogu biti sir i kajmak. Srbijanska je i rakija šljivovica, koja je za razliku od bosanske šljivovice - ljuta prepečenica. Bosanci su skloniji mekoj šljivovici ili od milja - mekoj šljivi. Srbijanski su Čačak, Užice i Šumadija, kao i rijeka Morava. Ali predsjednik Boris Tadić je srpski, kao što je srpska i nacija. Srbijanstvo je regionalna pripadnost, u širem smislu riječi. Srbijanci su kao Istrijani, što ne znači da neki od njih ne mogu srbijanstvo proglasiti za vlastitu naciju, ako im je to baš ćeif. Ali Hrvatska televizija i ovdašnje tiskovine niti su za tu stvar nadležne, niti su, ruku na srce, za nju zainteresirane. Kao ni za to je li Srbin Novak Đoković Srbijanac ili nije”, pisao je Jergović. (English translation: "Serbian can be cheese and kajmak. Serbian is also rakija of plum, which is unlike Bosnian plum rakija - angry prey. Bosnians are more inclined to soft plum-rakija or by the pet name - soft plums. Serbian are Čačak, Užice and Šumadija, as well as the river Morava. But President Boris Tadić is Serb, as is Serb nation. Serbianity is a regional affiliation, in the wider sense of the word. The Serbians are like Istrians, which does not mean that some of them cannot declare Serbianity [for] their own nation, if it is really a will to them. But Croatian television and local printed matters are neither competent for this thing, nor are they, hand to heart, interested for it. Neither for that whether Serb Novak Đoković is a Serbian or not," Jergović wrote.) – Jergović is awesome example of that Serbian nationalism in ethnic frame, who accepts geographical affiliation but not the people one as Serbian (noun, Srbijanac in BSH).

Da u medijima vladaju šarenilo i nedoumice oko upotrebe prisvojnih pridjeva srpski i srbijanski u spojevima sa imenicama vlada, policija, ustav i slično uočio je i banjalučki lingvista Milorad Telebak. Neki novinari uz njih upotrebljavaju atribut srpski, a neki - srbijanski. (English translation: Milorad Telebak, a Banja Luka linguist, spotted that in the media there is colorfulness/patchwork and dilemmas about the use of possesive adjectives Serb (srpski) and Serbian (srbijanski) in connections/syntagmas with/for the names of the governments, the police, the constitution and the like. Some journalists use the attribute Serb (srpski) and some – Serbian (srbijanski).)

“Na prvi pogled, izgleda da to i nije neki problem, ali se pokazuje da jeste, i to komplikovan. ‘Zasluga’ je to istorije i politike. U etničkom značenju, kad označava pripadnost Srbima u cjelini, pridjev srpski ne izaziva nesporazume: srpski jezik, srpski narod, srpska kultura, srpski običaji, srpska istorija… Problem nastaje kad se pridjev srpski upotrebljava u značenju pripadanja Srbiji (teritorijalno značenje), dakle, u vezama riječi: srpska vlada, srpska policija, srpski ustav…”, ocjenjuje Telebak i locira samu srž problema. (English translation: "At first glance, it does not appear to be something of a problem, but it turns out that it is, and it's complicated. 'Merit' is that of history and politics. In ethnic terms, when it signifies the affiliation to the Serbs as a whole, the adjective Serb (srpski) does not cause misunderstandings: Serb language, Serb people, Serb culture, Serb customs, Serb history ... The problem arises when the adjective Serb (srpski) is used in the sense of belonging to Serbia (territorial meaning) in the words of the words: Serb government, Serb police, Serb constitution...", Telebak assesses and locates the very core of the problem.) – Here we can note that English language calls "srpski jezik" Serbian language, so usage is not consistent (Serbians is for adherence to Serbia primarily). "Srpska vlada" (Serb government) is very NNPOV (non-neutral POV) term because one should say "Vlada Srbije" (Government of Serbia / Serbia Government).

On smatra da “ovdje dolazi do sudara dva značenja pridjeva srpski, etničkog i teritorijalnog, jer srpska vlada nije vlada svih Srba, niti u Srbiji, kao državi, žive samo Srbi”. Zato neki u ovom značenju upotrebljavaju pridjev srbijanski: srbijanski premijer, srbijanska policija. (English translation: He believes that "clash is being made up here with two meanings of the adjective Serb (srpski), ethnic and territorial, because the Serb[ian] government (srpska vlada) is not the government of all Serbs, nor in Serbia, as a state, live only Serbs". That is why some in this sense use the adjective Serbian: Serbian Prime Minister (srbijanski premijer), Serbian police (srbijanska policija).)

Telebak objašnjava da pridjev srbijanski, kao i srpski, ima dva značenja: koji se odnosi na Srbiju i koji se odnosi na Srbijance. A ni Srbijanci nisu samo građani Srbije nego i Srbi iz Srbije (nasuprot Srbima iz BiH, Crne Gore itd). Srbijanska vlada, srbijanska policija i sl. može biti shvaćeno kao vlada i policija Srba, a ne drugih stanovnika Srbije. Kao dvoznačan i neodređen, i pridjev srbijanski je u ovim spojevima, dakle, neprihvatljiv, zaključuje ovaj lingvista. (English translation: Telebak explains that the adjective Serbian (srbijanski), as well as Serb (srpski), has two meanings: which refers to Serbia and which refers to Serbians. And Serbians are not only Serbian citizens but Serbs from Serbia (as opposed to Serbs from BiH, Montenegro, etc.). Serbian government, Serbian police, etc. can be understood as a government and the police of Serbs, not of other Serbian citizens. As a two-dimensional and vague, also the adjective Serbian (srbijanski) in these compounds is, therefore, unacceptable, concludes this linguist.) – He makes logical error here because even though Serbian can apply for Serbs from Serbia, it does not comprehens only them by its basic definition/meaning, but comprehenses them plus other Serbians (those of other ethnic origin).

“Pridjev srpski treba upotrebljavati uz pojmove koji se odnose na Srbe kao naciju: srpski narod, srpski jezik, srpska kultura… Nije ga dobro upotrebljavati u značenju pripadanja državi Srbiji: srpski premijer, srpski ustav, srpska policija… S ciljem izbjegavanja dvoznačnosti i nesporazuma, u ovim sintagmama umjesto prisvojnog pridjeva (bilo srpski, bilo srbijanski) bolje je upotrebljavati prisvojni genitiv: Vlada Srbije, predsjednik Srbije, Ustav Srbije, policija Srbije”, smatra Telebak. (English translation: "The adjective Serb (srpski) should be used with the terms referring to the Serbs as a nation: the Serb people, the Serb[ian] language, Serb culture ... It is not good to use it also in the sense of belonging to the state of Serbia: the Serb Prime Minister, the Serb Constitution, the Serb police ... In order to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, In these syntagmas, instead of an possesive adjective (whether Serb (srpski) or Serbian (srbijanski)), it is better to use an possesive genitive: the Government of Serbia, the President of Serbia, the Constitution of Serbia, the Police of Serbia," Telebak considers.) – He assumes here that Serbs are nation, same as other ethnic Serbian nationalists; I repeat third or whichever time, it is factually impossible that Serbs are a nation because definition of a nationality is "legal relationship between an individual person and a state" (Vonk, Olivier (March 19, 2012). Dual Nationality in the European Union: A Study on Changing Norms in Public and Private International Law and in the Municipal Laws of Four EU Member States. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 19–20. ISBN 978-90-04-22720-0.); it is connected to state as such and not to origin, spoken language, customs etc. (some of which are currently invalidly present in the English Wikipedia article nation; thus, I put CN template there).

Upravo iz navedenih razloga Vlada Srbije je prihvatila preporuku ombudsmana, pa će najvjerovarnije već od naredne jeseni građani Srbije u rubrici državljanstvo umjesto srpsko kao do sada upisivati državljanstvo Republike Srbije, na zahtjev stranaka iz Sandžaka. Svi manjinski narodi u Republici Srbiji, podvode se pod odrednicu “srpsko” i mi smo tražili da se to ispravi - obrazlagao je Fevzija Murić. (English translation: For this reason, the Government of Serbia has accepted the recommendation of the Ombudsman, so the most probably the citizens of Serbia will from the next autumn in the field of citizenship instead of Serb (srpsko) as until now write citizenship of the Republic of Serbia, after the request of the Sandžak parties. All minority peoples in the Republic of Serbia are under the heading "Serb" ("srpsko") and we asked that this be corrected - explained Fevzija Murić.) – I think Muamer Zukorlić pointed to this problem and has won the battle to have NPOV (neutral POV) statement for citizens of Serbia.

Međutim, u Odboru za standardizaciju srpskog jezika SANU kažu da je pogrešno protumačeno značenje pridjeva srpsko, jer se on “ravnopravno odnosi na Srbiju ili Srbe”. Predsjednik tog odbora dr Sreto Tanasić upozorava na višegodišnje sistemsko brisanje pridjeva srpsko “gdje bi moglo asocirati na značenje pripadnosti Srbima”. Državne institucije time svesno vrše nasilje nad srpskim jezikom, izlazeći u susret onima kojima pridev srpski u svim kontekstima i značenjima smeta - kaže Tanasić. (English translation: However, the Serbian Language Standardization Committee of the Serbian Academy of Sciences (SANU) says that the meaning of adjective Serb (srpski) is misinterpreted, because it "equally refers to Serbia or Serbs". Sreto Tanasić, president of that board, warns of the long-term systemic deletion of adjective Serb (srpski) "where it could associate itself with the meaning of belonging to Serbs". State institutions thus knowingly carry out violence against the Serbian language, coming out to meet those to whom adjective Serb (srpski) in all contexts and meanings is disturbing - says Tanasić.) – Again, ethnic Serbian nationalism; other example is that Serbian language calls Bosnian language Bosniak language, even though Bosnian language standardization institutions and Bosnian and Bosniak people who are majority of the speakers call their own language Bosnian (bosanski).

U praksi je pridjev srbijanski u Srbiji skoro u potpunosti protjeran iako ga se može čuti u starim narodnim pjesmama kao što su “Svilen konac, srbijanski kroj” ili “Odakle si, sele” koja ima i ove stihove: “Jelek, anterija i opanci, po tome se znaju Srbijanci”, naprimjer. Može se čuti i u političkim raspravama u kojima se pripadnici dijela građanske i intelektualne elite nazivaju drugosrbijanci, a njihovi stavovi drugosrbijanski, obavezno u pežorativnom smislu. (English translation: In practice, the adjective Serbian (srbijanski) in Serbia is almost completely expelled/banished, although it can be heard in old folk songs such as "Silk Thread, Serbian Cut" ("Svilen konac, srbijanski kroj") or "Where Are You From, Sisterly" ("Odakle si, sele") which has these verses: "Jelek, Anteria and Opanci, Serbians are know by those" ("Jelek, anterija i opanci, po tome se znaju Srbijanci"), for example. It can also be heard in political discussions in which members of the civic and intellectual elites are called second-Serbians (drugosrbijanci), and their attitudes are second-Serbian, necessarily in a pejorative sense.) – I would add other song examples here by both Serb and Serbian singerin Izvorinka Milošević: "Srbijanci, šta je tu je" ("Serbians, it is as it is") and "Ja Vlajna a ti Srbijanac" ("I [am] Walach(ian) and you [are] Serbian"), as well as ultra ethno-nationalist singer Baja Mali Knindža "Krajišnik i Srbijanka" ("Man from Krajina and Serbian woman"). Noted Serbian enlightenment artists such as Nikola Kojo use also term Srbijanac in their works, e.g. "Crnogorac i Srbijanac" ("Montenegrin man and Serbian man"). There are other examples as well, Milan Mića Petrović sings song "Srbijanci i Bosanci" (Serbian and Bosnian men). Some YouTube channel Serbian Chetnik rewrote previously mentioned song's ("Odakle si, sele") verses into "Jelek, anterija, redenici, po tome se znaju svi četnici" ("Jelek, Anteria and cartridge belts / bandoliers, all chetniks are known by those") removing Srbijanci word which they don't accept.

Što se tiče pridjeva bosanski odnosno bosanskohercegovački i bošnjački, tu se od devedesetih, kada su se bosanski Muslimani počeli izjašnjavati kao Bošnjaci u nacionalnom i muslimani u vjerskom smislu, situacija se donekle iskristalisala. Bosanskohercegovačko je danas skoro sve što se odnosi na državu i sve građane i narode koji u toj zemlji žive, dok je bošnjačko sve ono što se odnosi na sve muslimane u BiH, ali i muslimane u Srbiji, Hrvatskoj, Crnoj Gori etc. (English translation: As for the adjectives Bosnian (bosanski), Bosnian and Herzegovinian (bosanskohercegovački) and Bosniak (bošnjački), since the nineties, when Bosnian Muslims began to declare themselves as Bosniaks in national and Muslims in religion sense, the situation somehow crystallized. Bosnian and Herzegovinian today is almost everything that concerns the state and all citizens and peoples living in that country, while Bosniak is all about all Muslims in BiH, but also Muslims in Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, etc.) – This is almost completely false statement because Bosnian Muslims did declare nationally as Bosniaks but in the meaning of ethnically (previously explained twice SFRY wrong politically-motivated usage of term nationality in census). It is true that Bosnian and Herzegovinian is what refers to state and all citizens and peoples who live in it, but Bosniak does NOT refer to all [religious] Muslims in BiH because there are ethnic Serbs and Croats and many Romani people who are Muslims by their faith; it does refer mostly to Muslims in BiH because most Muslims are Bosniaks, same situation with Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro etc.

Tako je i ime jezika izvedeno iz dijela imena države, bosanski, uz ravnopravnu upotrebu srpskog ili hrvatskog, ali je pojam Bošnjak postao ekskluzivno pravo muslimana , što se prilično razlikuje od istorijskog rješenja Benjamina Kalaja od prije 100 i kusur godina kada su svi stanovnici BiH nazivani Bošnjacima bez obzira da li su pravoslavci, muslimani ili katolici. (English translation: Thus, the name of the language was derived from the part of the name of the state, Bosnian (bosanski), with the equal use of the Serbian or Croatian, but the term Bosniak became the exclusive right of the Muslims, which is quite different from the historical solution of Benjamin Kalai from before 100 and the change [money sense, but...] of years when all inhabitants of BiH are called Bosniaks regardless of whether they are Orthodox, Muslim or Catholic.) – SANU and Serbs exactly because of this do not accept name Bosnian for the language, because states and nationals cannot have language – only ethnic groups / peoples. However, there are exceptions such as Swiss language that actually exists; note that it is not quite comparable to Bosnian language case, it would be invalid analogy, because of historic context of region of Bosnia – arrival of the Slavs there who began to call their language after the region and not afte their name (check this document, it's downlaoad link: Bosnian language (why not Bosniak and some historical characteristics) – FINAL VERSION).

Što se tiče Hrvata i izvedenog prisvojnog pridjeva hrvatski, kao da je najmanje nesporazuma. Otkako je zanemaren hrvatski doprinos stvaranju dviju Jugoslavija razvijena je upotreba riječi hrvatski kao opozit riječima Jugoslavija i jugoslovenski. Sve je postalo hrvatsko od teritorije do hrvatskog zraka ne samo na prostorima Hrvatske i čitave postjugoslavije nego i u cijeloj hrvatskoj dijaspori. (English translation: As for the Croats and the derived possesive adjective Croatian (hrvatski), as if there is least of misunderstandings. Since the Croatian contribution to the creation of the two of the Yugoslaviaa has been ignored, the use of the word "Croatian" (hrvatski) has been developed as opposed to the words "Yugoslavia" and "Yugoslav[ian]". Everything has become Croatian from the territory to the Croatian air, not only on the territory of Croatia and the whole post-Yugoslavia but also throughout the entire Croatian diaspora.)

Pišući o različitim značenjima prisvojnih pridjeva izvedenih iz imena južnoslovenskih naroda, jedan je beogradski list kao jedan od rijetkih primjera gdje su na jednom mestu i Srbijanci i Bosanci, pa čak i Hrvaćani naveo stihove Branka Radičevića iz “Đačkog rastanka”. Naravno, bilo je to vrijeme nacionalnog i svakog drugog romantizma, pa da se podsjetimo: ... Srbijanče, ognju živi ... Milorad Dodik, naravno, nije romantičar, kao što to nisu ni ostali političari u Bosni i Hercegovini, Srbiji ili Hrvatskoj. Svi zajedno morali bi da znaju da je upotreba prisvojnih pridjeva izuzetno kompleksna i da nasilna prisvajanja može dovesti do tragičnih posljedica za narode i građane kao što se desilo i u bliskoj prošlosti sa kojih sve hipoteke još nisu sasvim skinute. Kako one jezičke, tako i one političke prirode. (English translation: Writing about the different meanings of possesive adjectives derived from the name of the South Slavic peoples, there is one Belgrade newspaper as one of the rare examples where someone had pointed out the verses of Branko Radičević from "Đački Rastanak" where there are Serbians and Bosnians, and even Croats, in one place. Of course, it was the time of national and every other romanticism, so to recall: ... Serbian man [vocative], you the alive ingle [vocative continued]... Milorad Dodik, of course, is not a romantic, just like other politicians in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia or Croatia are not. All together, they should know that the use of possesive adjectives is extremely complex and that violent appropriations can lead to tragic consequences for people and citizens, as happened in the near past, from which all mortgages have not yet been completely removed. Both those linguistic, and those of a political nature same as well.)

• third ref, academia.edu:

The cultural landscape changed too: a process of ‘Serbisation’ of the region began. ... Both Albanian and Serbian cultural objects were targeted in the years of conflict ... whose staunch opposition against Kosovo’s independence is deemed essential by the Serbs – decorates posters and billboards), represent ‘pieces of Serbia in Kosovo’ as everything is written in the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet and Serbian ? and inscriptions ‘Republic of Serbia’ decorate the landscape ...

• fourth ref, hrcak and fifth Nikač talk about language and ethnic appropriations, respectively.

See also "J.P. Mallory and D.Q. Adams, "Protect", The Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture (London: Fitzroy and Dearborn, 1997)" where it is said for English exatly that noun Serb is A person of Serb descent (not necessarily from Serbia). (Compare Serbian.) and as adjective Serb Of or pertaining to the Serbs; Serbian. (wikt:Serb#English).

Also note that Serbian language Wikipedia follows SANU reccomendations of using Serb when meaning citizenship, so in the lede of the articles on this language version of Wikipedia it is said "''NN_person'' is [[Serbia|Serb]] ([[Srbija|srpski]]) ''proffesion_placeholder''", what is inconsistent, NNPOV (non-neutral POV) and bias in the favor of Serbs. Somewhere, where there should be national and not ethnic affiliation there was ethnic affiliation with no explainable reason: "''NN_person'' is [[Serbs|Serb]] ([[Srbi|spski]]) ''proffesion_placeholder''".

After all this, it is impossible to conlude that this topic is not relevant for the article on Serbs. There are some facts that need no source, such as different usage of possesive adjectives in Serbian and Bosnian language due to political-ethnic-linguistic malversations (these can be checked in official ortographies: link for Serbian and the download link for Bosnian (other link)). --Obsuser (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)