Talk:Serbia/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Foundation of early medieval Serbia?

User:JohnGotten, Wkipedia is usually based on reliable secondary sources, not on primary and especially not on their interpretation by random editors. You are definitely confusing the settlement of the White Serbs on the Balkans with the creation of the Serbian principality. For resolving the issue when exactly Serbia was established during the middle ages we can use for example the prominent academic book: "The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century" with author John Van Antwerp Fine Jr., a professor of Balkan and Byzantine history at the University of Michigan. This book was published by the University of Michigan Press in 1991. As prof. Fine has stated there: Thought the Byzantines had lost control of most of the Balkans in the seventh century, the Slavs had formed no states as yet. They continued to live in small tribal units, independent of one another, etc. see: p. 65. And he has claimed also that: In the middle of the 8th century Serbia has achieved some sort of statehood, as various Serbian tribes, faced with the Bulgarian threat, united under a prince named Vlastimir, etc. see: p. 141. The conclusion is clear: during the 7th century there were no Slavic state formations on the Balkans. Serbia emerged as a separate entity in the 8th century. Also check please: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history).Regards. Jingiby (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, for your reasoning, the states of bosnia, and croatia appeared on the 8th, not on the 7th as both wikipedias say

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia

to me this sounds very revisionist, trying to reduce Serbia in a recent state. JohnGotten (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

JohnGotten, I have mistaken your last edits. I am sorry. However I have also changed the dates in both articles pointed by you above for now, i.e. Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jingiby: you're right as a Serbian proto-state emerged after 780 CE under Višeslav of Serbia. The De Administrando Imperio which has been quoted - but shouldn't be because it is WP:PRIMARY - is considered a Byzantine political narrative in contemporary bibliography, both internationally and in Serbia itself and it doesn't even mention that an Unknown Archon "established Serbia" in the 7th century but it has the exact opposite function - to deny the legitimacy of Serbian statehood in the late 8th century. The Unknown Archon is a mythological construction of DAI whose only purpose was to show that a supposed ancestor of Višeslav (the Unknown Archon) was a Byzantine vassal who came to the Balkans with direct Byzantine interference and thus Višeslav had no legitimacy to statehood as he was in fact a ... vassal. Bibliography:

• Curta, Florin (2001). The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500–700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Dzino, Danijel (2010). Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat: Identity Transformations in Post-Roman and Early Medieval Dalmatia. Brill. ISBN 9789004186460.
• Kardaras, Georgios (2011). "The Settlement of the Croats and Serbs on the Balkans in the Frame of the Byzantine-Avar Conflicts" (PDF). Bulgaria, the Bulgarians, Europe - Mythus, History, Modernity, Veliko Turnovo, Oct. 29-31. 2009. IV. University Press "St. Cyril and Methodius". Now, why on wikipedia some editors defend a narrative which in its time was viewed as - and actually is - an imperial narrative against medieval Serbian independence is one very interesting anthropological case study.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Be careful which viewpoints you're citing due to bias and scientific ideology. These works aren't without criticism and scientific opponents. I would advise you to cite work by Tibor Živković for the Serbian medieval period, especially the analysis of DAI.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

My overview of Živković is the following: the Serbs came in cumulative migrational waves in the Balkans as foederati starting from the mid 7th century and in the 8th century reached proto-statehood. He also rejects the idea of an invitation by Heraclius to an unknown archon as an ideological construction/narrative. You're referring to Post-processual archaeology ("ideology") but in this subject at least in contemporary bibliography there's no fundamental disagreement. --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: I referred only indirectly to this ideology, what I meant was Vienna School of History which has the same postmodern and Marxist ideological background. Its scholars, like Walter Pohl, had a great influence on many contemporary historians, including Dzino who mentioned that fact in the introduction of the book. See also A. Piteša's review of Dzino's book clearly describing it as a poststructuralist and revisionistic in the perception of ethnic identities and anthropological migrations.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jingiby: I am confused here, so the source for Heraclius is valid and 7th is the foundation of a Serbian state? This as added back into the article. But not for the Croatia article....OyMosby (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

In the available sources it appears that there's no foundation of Serbia in the 7th century.N.Hoxha (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

OyMosby, please check: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). The source for Heraclius is not valid by a lot of reasons. Jingiby (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jingiby: Hmmm.... I will take your word and look into further sourcing about the Heraclius claim. And the 7th/8th c claims. It always gets wobbly with early dates. Though will you not tag the Serbia article for the same Heraclius 7th c claim? Also why was Duansty added as a founding entity? Thank you. OyMosby (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Disputed primary information

It was said in 822 that the Serbs inhabited the more significant part of Roman Dalmatia,

• This information is WP:PRIMARY, otherwise this information is incomplete (who says that?), in addition it is presented and as a historical fact because there is this context behind it ("their territory spanning what is today southwestern Serbia and parts of neighbouring countries. Meanwhile, the Byzantine Empire and the Bulgarian Empire held other parts of the territory.") Given that there are sources which criticize this information as inaccurate or contradictory(when the whole historical text is taken into account), it is my opinion that this information should not be part of the article. Mikola22 (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

On its arrival Ljudovit withdrew from the city of Sisak and fled to the Serbs,a people that is said to hold a large part of Dalmatia It's WP:PRIMARY and it doesn't even put forward that exact sentence.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Questionable information

and in the 6th and early 7th century, established the Serbian Principality by the 8th century.

• @TU-nor: This information has only one source as conformation(Moravcsik 1967), but Sima Ćirković in his English book "Serbs" talk about some Serb rulers around year 822 etc. See book, page 14, (The Serbs, 2004). There is no mention of year 700-800 or earlier in Serbian rulers context. Mikola22 (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Tidied! --T*U (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Moravcsik (1967) is a 1949 translation of DAI, it's not a source.--Maleschreiber (talk)

@TU-nor:, Prince Vojislav or Višeslav , who ruled probably around the year 780, information from (Samardžić-Duškov) book. That’s why I sad in(Croatia article) that I used example from this article because it’s similar information. Višeslav of Croatia Reign 785–c. 802 and earlier rulers. However Sima Ćirković does not mention this fact(780 and Prince Vojislav) in his book until 822 and rulers from that time. Mikola22 (talk) 06:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

De Administrando Imperio

I have removed the extensive discussion of the flaws regarding DAI from this article, because this level of detail is far too much for this article. While I have no issue with the material itself, there is a dedicated article for De Administrando Imperio, and I would not object to the material being added there. However, this being a country article, the history section is only meant to provide a very brief overview per WP:SS. The material about DAI is simply not appropriate for an article such as this. Khirurg (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

De Administrando Imperio is only source which concern Serb migration to Balkans, and connections with White Serbia and White Serbs. This information is from the book of academician Sima Ćirković and very significant information regarding history of the Serbs. Removing this information with claim that this is "tendentious nonsense" actually refute book of academician Sima Ćirković who use this information establishing migration of Serbs to the Balkans. I think such reasons do not make sense at all, in any case the source is RS and must be respected. Mikola22 (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

De Administrando Imperio is riddled with anachronisms and factual errors as shown here [1]. Not to mention that Servia is not anywhere near Thessaloniki, but rather a good deal south. So you linking the two as you did here [2] is misleading to our readers. Khirurg (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This information is from book of Serbian academician and if some historians think otherwise his claim may be enter as additional information. Our priority is the Serbian academic. As for Thessaloniki(Solun), from the source, same page: "smjestio u kraju u solunskoj oblasti... located in the area of the Thessaloniki". Mikola22 (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

And that is in turn based on DAI, which you now know to be unreliable. Khirurg (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I added the interpretation of the DAI in order to avoid such discussions in the future. Serbs have nothing to do with Servia. Greece. The only text where this connection appears is the DAI. It's not confirmed in archaeological, archival and historiographical material and it's not mentioned by medieval Serb authors. There's not a single person in medieval Serbia who wrote about a supposed first settling in Greece. In fact, the Serbs-Servia connection was ignored for much of history and only resurfaced in the late 19th century, at first as a pan-Slavic narrative which was later picked up as an ideological strategy after Serbia/Yugoslavia expanded in Macedonia. In the 21st century, it has been abandoned and contemporary analysis of the DAI has explained why its 10th century Byzantine authors made that claim. Now, I can write a brief version of the contemporary analysis of DAI in relation to Serbs-Servia, but the current sentence has to be changed. It takes as a fact that Serbs settled in Macedonia and then it concludes that they were transported to the other side of the Balkans in eastern Bosnia/western Serbia in order to bridge the gap between the DAI and the historically confirmed presence of the Serbs in that region.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

According to Tibor Živković in that area exist Serbian ethnonyms, also John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. in book "A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century" use this information: "The emperor received them and gave them land in the province of Thessaloniki (a province settled by many Slavs prior to that reign)". In any case the Academic Source must be respected. Mikola22 (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise I don’t know how much you understand the matter, DAI is only source which talk about Serbian migration to Balkans, connection with White Serbs, additional it is and only source which talks where this Serbs settled and about Serb origin of Zahumljani, Pagani etc. Therefore, these are facts which are used in historiography but without confirmation in other sources of that time. Mikola22 (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This is opinion of Serbian archaeologist Đorđe Janković from RS: "Установљена је археолошка веза у VII столећу између Дунава у околини Брзе Паланке и области Пљевља. То може значити да су Срби из данашње североисточне Србије прешли у области ондашње провинције Далмације. То даље указује да би податак о преласку Срба из околине Солуна на Дунав могао бити тачан...An archeological connection was established in the 7th century between the Danube in the vicinity of Brza Palanka and the Pljevlja area. This may mean that Serbs from today's northeastern Serbia moved to the area of province of Dalmatia. This further indicates that information's about moving of Serbs from the vicinity of Thessaloniki to the Danube could be accurate."[3] and then bring his conclusion or thesis which is probably fringe. Mikola22 (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Griboski: This connection is not contested, second source brings sources which speak about that connection(ethnonyms etc). This is historical information presented in Academic source. We must respect sources and in historiography there are probably different opinions but present sources use this information as valid information. Mikola22 (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• DAI is not the only source speaking about arrival of the Slavs, including Serbs. DAI goes into more details. Stop edit-warring please. Stop undermining other editors. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

We do not speak about arrival of the Slavs, we talk about Serbs. And indeed DAI is only historical source which speak about arrival of the Serbs to the Balkans and connection with White Serbs. If that historical information is used then it must be in reliable sources context (the whole information). If this information was disputable, the academic and others would not use it in their books. If someone does not like this important information concerning the history of Serbs, then say it clearly. Using fragments of information's from sources leads to nothing. We must respect sources. Mikola22 (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

And you've been shown sources that show that DAI is riddled with factual errors and incorrect. Yet you are completely ignoring that and just repeating "information form the source" like a broken record. Khirurg (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Show me where I "show that DAI is riddled with factual errors", then I'll answer. As for broken record, unfortunately I have fellow editors who don’t really like to work in good faith. Example: 200 thousands of orthodox or Serbs which coming to Slavonia and Croatia, but this information is forgery ie "mistake" in historiography(Sima Ćirković explained in two sources). This 200 thousand of peoples is more than people which coming to whole Balkans in 7th century. It is big big fact, but some editors think "no matter what" that we must respect sources, therefore I also respect the sources.

I am an editor who works in good faith and if you don't like this information say it and then we will remove it from the article(whole information with all sources), but in any case we can't have fragmented information without context because source do not have fragmented information without context. I as a editor can't support fragmented information without context because it is new idea or fact which this sources do not prove and it is WP:OR. Mikola22 (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Show me where I "show that DAI is riddled with factual errors" Are you kidding me? You were shown right here [4] that the part about Thessaloniki is factually incorrect. Pretending not to notice is disruption and can lead to a topic ban. Khirurg (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Khirurg:, Which topic ban? What are you talking about? This edit from link is edit of editor Maleschreiber. I did not include this information in the article. ("That part about Thessaloniki is factually incorrect"), this claim is from Curta source about Serbian name(claim of Constantine VII) not about Serbs around Thessaloniki or migration to that area. Do you read talk page and information from edit of editor Maleschreiber? Therefore, you cannot return half of information to the article because you are not following the sources and with this edit you create new information out of context which is not stated in sources, and this is WP:OR. Mikola22 (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: "I added the interpretation of the DAI". You added information from Curta source about name and disputes of Constantine VII claims about name(slave issue). This does not concern the Slavs and the Serbs around Thessaloniki. The third source brings information's and historians who talk about connection of Serbs with area of Thessaloniki. In addition, the first and second source use DAI information as relevant. First source is book of academician and second source is "awarded with the Wayne S. Vucinich Prize for the best North American book in the field of Russian and Eastern European studies. Mikola22 (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The passage cited to Ivo Banac's book is footnoted to the DAI on that page. If other secondary sources are dismissed because they translate or interpret the DAI directly, then it should be applied equally. The best solution might be something like Maleschreiber's version that lays out the claims from the DAI and notes its inaccuracy afterward, without going into too much detail. This is beyond my realm though. --Griboski (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

("without going into too much detail") will not change the fact that all present sources use only DAI as historical source(also Ivo Banac's book), but this historians do not quote DAI, they on the basis of DAI draw a conclusions ie information's in their books. Make some new conclusions without too much detail is out of context and OR because we must stick to information's from the sources WP:STICKTOSOURCE. The only solution is to throw out this information along with sources from the article but this is information from two strongest sources which we have and which exists. Mikola22 (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

As for Maleschreiber solution, I explained that he use Curta source ie claim for Serbian name issue(if you think about that). This claim doesn’t really belong to this article or next to this information, maybe belongs in the "Names of the Serbs and Serbia" article. Mikola22 (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Khirurg is correct. The section shouldn't be a place for extensive discussion on the DAI. It is sufficient to say that its accounts are innacurate/flawed and disputed in contemporary scholarship. --Griboski (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

There has been no discussion in that section obout DAI. After Maleschreiber made edit then this discussion about DAI start. But edit of Maleschreiber has nothing to do with this information which is here for long time without intervention. Curta has own view about DAI but what does that have to do with this article and information from three sources. As for "disputed in contemporary scholarship" fact, first show me sources which talk about it because I don’t know what it’s about. In its current state, this information cannot remain because it is OR. This information must be consistent with the sources. Mikola22 (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Even if we take the claim that the White Serbs first settled in central Greece, before moving again all the way north to the Sava river (which is factually incorrect, but let's pretend), this level of detail is not appropriate for this article. The article is about Serbia, not the White Serbs. There is a separate article for the White Serbs, where that information can be discussed in more detail. Country articles are only meant to include general coverage of history per WP:SS, not go into this level of detail. The whole medieval section is only 10 sentences. The Serbian Empire, the apex of the Serbian state is not mentioned at all. And you want to add information about...Thessaloniki? Enough already. Khirurg (talk) 05:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I highly recommend Mikola22 to finally hear the opponents and stop going around in circles in this discussion.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't go in any circles, we cannot have only part of the information because we must respect full information WP:STICKTOSOURCE, otherwise we have some new history of the Serbs ie WP:OR. This same information is on Serbian Wikipedia (Serbia article) with academician Tibor Živković as source (Živković, Tibor (2002). Južni Slaveni pod bizantskom vlašću (600.-1025.). Beograd: Istorijski institut SANU, Službeni glasnik. str. 198.) I cant find this source but it is four source with same claim. @Khirurg ("which is factually incorrect, but let's pretend"), this is written in the book of academics and they are not saying that this information is incorrect or correct, this is only history information they have. That's why we say "according to De administrand imperio". Everything is explained, the current information is OR. Mikola22 (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The DAI has been deconstructed long ago - if articles which are based on DAI are put forward, then the 100x more papers which deconstruct their arguments have to be put forward. That discussion can take place on White Serbs. The latest article - found on rastko.rs - and added by @Sadko: does the same thing and it's even more WP:FRINGE. With the help of late Early Byzantine fibulae we can determine the provinces that lasted until the beginning of Emperor Heraclius’s reign (610-641) in which, or along whose borders, also lived Slavs, i.e. Serbs. On the basis of written, archaeological, and topographic data, perhaps from as early as the mid 6th century, the Serbs, and possibly the Antes, i.e. Russians, lived in the upper Southern Morava – Pčinja – Bregalnica – Lepenac area. Now, the publication is not WP:RS and it's WP:FRINGE. There are other places where the idea that White Serbs and Russians "possibly" lived in Northern Macedonia in 550 CE is considered a legitimate discussion. What some editors want to discuss on wikipedia stands far removed from what is being discussed in reliable academic journals. --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: ("The DAI has been deconstructed long ago.") The DAI is not deconstructed long ago. That DAI is deconstructed long ago then academics would not use it as a source of information in their books. DAI is main source for Serbian and Croatian history ie in the Croatian and Serbian historiography. I don't know what you're talking about? What you added to the article is explanation about Serbian name, and it has nothing to do with all DAI. However, current information is and still OR. Mikola22 (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Jankovic is partially fringe but that is not the case with this work. DAI still has a place and importance when it comes to studying early Serb and Croatian history. Russians who? You are making little sense. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Go to RSN and the WP:FRINGE noticeboard and seek for a consensus about "partially FRINGE" sources about a Russian presence in 6th century Macedonia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

To reiterate: the DAI places the Serbs in Thessaloniki/Macedonia only because medieval Byzantine politics wanted to establish that Serb presence in the Balkans began as a vassal people within imperial territory. The Serbs, however, had settled across the northern border of actual Byzantine control as all archaeological and historical material indicates today, thus they weren't Byzantine vassals which had to be reintegrated as the narrative of the DAI would have its medieval (wealthy) reader believe. To a medieval Serb reader (a wealthy feudal ruler or merchant) the DAI would look like a piece of document with a strong "anti-Serbian bias". From his perspective, he would be right. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I see the following phrase from the Jankovic: and possibly the Antes, i.e. Russians - and I think this is complete FRINGE. --Nicoljaus (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Fourth source

Према Константину Порфирогениту Срби су се на Балканско полуострво населили, у доба Ираклија (610-641) уз василевсово одобрење, на подручју града Сервије.29^ Уколико je овај податак и веродостојан, опет je тешко рећи у којој године дуге Ираклијеве владавине се овај догађај збио. Можда je могуће поћи од претпоставке да се насељавање одиграло после 626. године.. Занимљиво je поменути да недалеко од данашње Сервије постоје два насеља чија имена се могу довести у везу са Србима..Насељавање Срба југозападно од Солуна, у област Сервије, било би тако последица недавне словенске опсаде Солуна из 614-616. године и намера Ираклија да Словене у залеђу града св. Димитрија држи у миру помоћу Срба

According to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the Serbs settled on the Balkan Peninsula, in the time of Heraclius (610-641) with vasilevs' approval, in the area of the city of Servia. If this information is credible, it is difficult to say in which year of Heraclius' long reign this event took place. It may be possible to start from assumption that the settlement took place after year 626...It is interesting to mention that not far from today's Servia, there are two settlements whose names can be associated with Serbs. The settlement of Serbs southwest of Thessaloniki, in the area of Servia, would be consequence of the recent Slavic siege of Thessaloniki from year 614-616 and intent of Heraclius that in the hinterland of the city of St. Dimitrija keep Slavs at peace with the help of Serbs

• This is fourth information and this is from academician Tibor Živković. Source: page 96,97 (СЛОВЕНИ И РОМЕЈИ(2000)) [5]

• Fifth source. Siniša Mišić, (2014) Istorijska geografija srpskih zemalja od 6. do polovine 16. veka (Historical geography of Serbian lands from the 6th to the middle of the 16th century) page 18, [6].

Original resurch

White Serbs, an early Slavic tribe from White Serbia eventually settled in an area between the Sava river and the Dinaric Alps

• This information is WP:OR, (Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication.) ie WP:STICKTOSOURCE.

Sources information: "According to the work De Administrando Imperio written by the 10th-century Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, in the first half of the 7th century the Serbs from White Serbia had arrived in an area near Thessaloniki, but shortly afterwards they left that area and settled lands between the Sava and the Dinaric Alps"

In the article there are not mentioned: "According to Constantine VII, De Administrando Imperio, written by the 10th-century, first half of the 7th century, arrived in Servia an area near Thessaloniki" fact.

Present information from article is out of context and we must stick to the sources because four sources do not speak in present context. In books of two academics and in the other two sources there are other valuable informations concerning the migration and history of the Serbs. Entering information into the article out of context we have new historical fact which is misleading fact and original research. We must respect context and sources. Mikola22 (talk) 06:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

What are you going on about? It makes no sense. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Everything is explained. Four sources give one context(see sources or cited information above), but present information from the article does not transmit authentic context from the source and sources. Important and even historical facts have been leave out from the cited academic sources and because of that current information from the article is out of context. ("Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context."). Mikola22 (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

You did not explain anything. Once again, I will kindly ask you to explain your actions in more details and stop removing sources. I won't ask one more time. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the problem here is the word context.... to quote one of my favorite movies The Princess Bride "You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means." Context means the situation something is placed in. I believe you mean something more along the lines of "out of alignment with the sources" There is no single word that fits what you are trying to say in English. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

From my point of view, the situation is as follows - for the context of this article, the previous adventures of the Serbs on the way from hypothetical "White Serbia", do not have much significance. Therefore, now the article contains the phrase "eventually settled." I see no reason to expand this episode the way Mikola22 wants it.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Entire chapter is a concise summary, and contains only the most basic data, since we have more comprehensive articles on the medieval history of Serbia. There is no need for expansion of narrative related to migration. I looked at the links, and added some easily accessible scholarly sources, in English. Sorabino (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sorabino: Two present sources and four more sources speak full information. We have a Wikipedia rule (WP:STICKTOSOURCE) but that rule is not followed here. Mikola22 (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

You are going in circles, without, obviously, understanding the very same rule that you are quoting. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: Please explain to me this rule, in this case. You have my explanation above. Where I did wrong? Mikola22 (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The context was not seriously changed and there was no "manipulation" or per say a serious breakage of WP:STICKTOSOURCE, as you implied. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

You confessed publicly that information from sources is changed but not "seriously". This means that without historical facts stated in 7 sources(two books of academics) such as: "According to Constantine VII, De Administrando Imperio, written by the 10th-century, first half of the 7th century, arrived in Servia an area near Thessaloniki" present information from the article is not seriously changed. Thanks for the clarification, I have a lot to learn from you. Mikola22 (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Better Photo for Dusan Proclamation law

put this photo Paja JovanoviKrunisanje Cara Dusana 2.jpg

thanks ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.58.53.226 (talk • contribs)

Could you please send me the link? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

here the link https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B5%D1%9A%D0%B5_%D0%94%D1%83%D1%88%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B3_%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0#/media/%D0%94%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0:Paja_JovanoviKrunisanje_Cara_Dusana_2.jpg

cheers ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.59.110.179 (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Lede changing

@Setreix: You can discuss your changes to the lead here and provide your sources. You have to follow WP:BRD rules in these cases, especially when changing the lead section.--Vacant0 (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Vacant0: The region of Central Europe is based more on culture and history, than geography, if you think that is the case. It is loosely defined. Please see the first image used in the article of Central Europe. There are many countries, as I have mentioned before, lying partly in "Central" Europe, but are not considered a part of the region. Such as Serbia itself, Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Croatia, and even ITALY... and I can go on. But nobody considers these countries, let's say, as "Central" European as Czechia, Poland, Switzerland, Austria, or Germany. You could say Romania is partly in Central Europe due to Transylvania, yet its lead says it is in Southeast Europe. Setreix (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The most used definition of Central Europe, even though at times even Slovenia is excluded.

It is a loosely defined area, however, it is definitely on the crossroads between Central and Southeast Europe. Serbia isn't considered to be a solely Central or a Southeastern country, historically and even today there are major differences between the Central European part of Serbia and the Southeastern part. Balkans, again, is defined as southeastern by many, and Serbia isn't completely included in it, thus you cannot only include Southeastern in the lead, it's misleading. Before making future changes like this, it would be more welcoming to start a discussion than making bold changes. Again, the Pannonian Plain (which is in Central Europe) stretches across Serbia. --Vacant0 (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Vacant0: In that case, it would be more appropriate to use the word "crossroads" than just "in". But you see, that other partly Central European countries, such as Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Italy don't mention that they are in Central Europe in their leads... It is a bit confusing, if you would say. Even Lithuania and Belarus have small portions in Central Europe, by the way. Why is it not mentioned that are a part of the region in their leads, then? If you follow the expanded definition, then they are "Central" European too.

It you are indeed going to expand the official and most used definition, then would be more justified to get all of the "partly Central European" countries to have the "Central" part in their leads. Its confusing if Serbia gets Central added to the lead, but Ukraine, Romania, or Russia with a literal proper Central European part (Kaliningrad) doesn't have Central added to their leads. Setreix (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Italy and Russia are definitely not in Central Europe, parts of Ukraine are but compared to Ukraine's size it can not be considered Central European. Romania's lead is fine since it mentions "crossroads" which is appropriate and accurate. Lithuania is associated with the Baltic region and Belarus, like Ukraine, has even smaller parts that are technically a part of Central Europe, historically-wise Ukraine and Belarus aren't in Central Europe. Again, Russia is nowhere described as Central European, only Kaliningrad is. Crossroads would be the more appropriate term to use for Serbia since majority of sources describe it like that. --Vacant0 (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Vacant0: But in this expanded definition we have been discussing about, Italy and Russia both have parts in Central Europe, just like Serbia does. Kaliningrad is a huge exclave, and makes Russia partly in Central Europe. Serbia is not included in the proper definition of the region, just like Russia or Italy, but its included in the expanded definition. You have to understand how Serbia, nor Russia or Italy are not considered Central European, normally, like at all. But if one of the three are, then all of the three should be. But your explanation for Ukraine, Belarus, and Lithuania is not how it works. You can't exclude something by justifying its size or whatever. Setreix (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Expanded definition doesn't exist – Serbia is described as on the crossroads (a road that crosses a main road or runs cross-country between main roads) – Kaliningrad by size may be 'huge' (223km^2) but as I said comparison of Kaliningrad and the rest of Russia is just insane (Russia's size is approx. 17,098,023 km^2 if we exclude Kaliningrad), you cannot call a country Central European if its territory in Central Europe only encompasses a small percentage of its total territory. This goes same for Italy, it has parts in Central Europe but you cannot consider it to be even on the crossroads due to country's size. Wikipedia relies on sources, reliable sources and in this case most describe it as on the crossroads. --Vacant0 (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Then we have to go with the word "crossroads". Previously, it was just "in". Setreix (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2021

Armendmendi.me (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

“disputed territory of Kosovo”

There is nothing disputed about the territory of the Republic of Kosovo, 🇽🇰 declared independence in 2008, now more than 13 years, and in 2010 this declaration was legitimized by the International Court of Justice, and this independence came as a result of genocide committed by the military-police forces by the Serbian state apparatus headed by Slobodan Milosevic. Therefore, a State recognized by the vast majority of democracies, and members of many international organizations, to consider it a "disputed territory" in addition to being untrue is also propaganda promoted by Serbia, and it is neither professional nor moral that these fake nationalisms to be supported and pushed forward by Wikipedia.

“(excluding Kosovo)”

Including Kosovo, excluding Kosovo, what are these, what kind of misinformation is this, WHERE are you including Kosovo, the Republic of Kosovo is a sovereign STATE, then I am taking an example from sports, 🇽🇰 is accepted in UEFA and FIFA, when Serbia plays football, do you write there "including Kosovo", or not, because Kosovo here has its National Team, can a “Province" play in FIFA? I would ask you to correct these stupid mistakes and not to incite Serbian nationalist propaganda, here it seems as if it was written by some Serbian extremist, and not a famous official website like Wikipedia.

“province of Kosovo”

"Province of Kosovo" Another scandalous "information", ask the United States of America, ask the United Kingdom, ask the 22 of 27 member states of the European Union, ask more than 120 Countries that have recognized 🇽🇰 as an independent and sovereign state, whether the Republic of Kosovo is a "province" or State, or ask Israel that a few months ago recognized the Republic of Kosovo.

Provide reliable sources? For all that I said, for all you have resources everywhere you look, except in Serbian sources there you find dreams of Serbian extremists, come to Kosovo and see if you enter a State, or a Serbian province.

Look for resources on Google, write Joe Biden: Kosovo and Serbia should sign an agreement for mutual recognition, write: Presidenca e Republikës së Kosovës write: Qeveria e Republikës së Kosovës

🇽🇰🇽🇰🇽🇰 Armendmendi.me (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Dositej obradovic portrait.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Under "Sports" add more information about the men's water polo team. Change "The Serbia men's national water polo team is one of the most successful national teams, having won an Olympic gold medal in 2016, three World Championships (2005, 2009 and 2015), and seven European Championships (in 2001, 2003, 2006, 2012, 2014, 2016 and 2018).[479] VK Partizan has won a joint-record seven European champion titles." to "The Serbia men's national water polo team is one of the most successful national teams, having won two Olympic gold medals (2016 and 2021) and two bronze medals (2008 and 2012), three World Championships (2005, 2009 and 2015), and seven European Championships (in 2001, 2003, 2006, 2012, 2014, 2016 and 2018) with a total of 54 medals in 12 events.[479] VK Partizan has won a joint-record seven European champion titles.", for example. Update the number of weeks Novak Djokovic has spent as No.1, add an Olympic bronze to the list of achievements of the national women's volleyball team, and add Jovana Preković and her statistics (Olympic gold in 2021, two European golds in 2017 and 2021, one European bronze in 2016 and one world championship in 2018).

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2021

Change [rtheast, Bulgaria to the southeast, North Macedonia to the south, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina to the west, and Montenegro to the southwest; while claiming a border with Albania through the] from the first paragraph to [. . . southwest. It also claims . . .] Nelsonbank (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC) Nelsonbank (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Per hidden comment on the article < Please discuss on the talk page (heading "Albania borders Kosovo") before editing the foregoing sentence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Unaligned countries photo

Since 1st meting was in Belgrade, i think we could have photo in that part (Socialist Yugoslavia), on left side ?! --Petar Milošević (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence by Kosovo

@Klačko: Share your thoughts here if you are looking forward to remove content. Refrain from editing the Article.--InNeed95 (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Already explained in the edit. Insisting on putting adjective in sentence which is crystal clear and understandable and which, formulated as that, has been in the article for a long time before your edits, is not a good faith edit. That's it, not really needed to open discussion in the TP about one word (adjective) which is certainly redundant in that particular sentence. As for your malicious insinuation about me being sock of some other user, please check when I was registered and whole of my history (contributions) on wikipedia. Regards, Klačko (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Klačko:Its funny that you are accusing me of "Edit Warring", while you were the one removing content without a concensus. I asked you to use the TP to discuss it. You should not use the Revert option to tell us about your Viewpoint. Use the TP for that, so we can find a concensus on the issue.

Now to your comment. Representitives of the Kosovan Assembly declared independence. Thats the sentence you want to have. The Assembly can declare everything. It does not specifically tell about the independence of the whole territory of Kosovo. Just "declared independence". They may have declared independence from the serbian Train Network or the Energy Block and many more. Else it might be confusing to people that are not familiar to the topic.<--- Thats the point. Leaving the "Kosovan independence" in the sentence, tells the reader about what actually happened (Not my edit as you claimed. The adjective has been there for a long time prior). Only because you are familar with the event, and you yourself know which independence is meant, doesnt mean everybody shares the same familiarity with it.

There is a need to start a TP discussion, because there is a dispute. Even if it is only one word, it is still a dispute, which has to be solved thru the TP. If you disagree with it and still continue to Edit the Article, you will be counted as a Edit-Warrior and Vandaliser.

Me, claiming you, to be a sock is a reasonable claim. Because not long ago, another User (Sock-User) did the same edit. Claiming to be innocent, only because your account has some age to it, doesnt mean you arent a sock. A person can maintain several accounts.

So as I mentioned above, please refrain from editing the Article, until we have found a concensus. Best Regards, --InNeed95 (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Consensus obviously has been there for a very long time since before your edit the version of sentence without adjective "Kosovan" was there for years and nobody didnt put adjective "Kosovan" because it is redundant. Even now, there is obviously a consensus about version without adjective "Kosovan" as there are multiple users who are trying to revert to that version and you are THE ONLY ONE insisting on putting "Kosovan" in a sentence.

And please give me a break with that argument that the Assembly could declare independence from Serbian train network or distribution system, I mean you can do better than that... It is obvious what kind of declaration of independence was that for everybody reading that sentence because in the continuation of that same sentence it goes that "Serbia claim it as part of its own sovereign territory". Moreover, issue of separation from train network or energy distribution system would certainly not be of that importance to be in introductory section.

PS please cut the crap about reaching consensus before removing content. Its an old wiki trick game when someone doesnt like the change then calls on reaching consensus on TP. I ve been active here on Wikipedia for more than a decade now, so find someone else selling those tricks and please refrain from posting on my page those warnings because it looks silly especially since you are not administrator on this thing.

Klačko (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Klačko: The Word has been there for years. Not specifically "Kosovan", but the Word "Kosovo". Which basically is the same, only that Kosovo is a subject and Kosovan the Adjective. This has been changed a roughly month ago. You have removed the word with no concensus. Stop Edit-Warring on the Article without proper explainations and prove for your claims!

It is a fact, that they could have delcared anything. Unfamiliar readers dont know what is meant. You as a familiar one know. Its just confusing if its not shown.

You dont have to be a Administrator to Warn people. / Even though you have created your account on Wiki a long time ago, you still seem to be unfamiliar with the process of solving a Dispute (As shown by your childish and non cooperation on Serbia). Refrain from Editing the Article until a concesus has been found!--InNeed95 (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Theonewithreason: There is a discussion going on here. Feel free to join. Refrain from editing the Article without a concensus. Best Regards, --InNeed95 (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2022

Nominal GDP in 2022 is projected to reach $65.7 billion, which is $9,561 per capita, while GDP based on purchasing power parity (PPP) stood at $153 billion, which is $22,278 per capita.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Serbia 2401:7400:4004:AE14:8356:89C4:D230:2F51 (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Unfortunately, we cannot cite Wikipedia in Wikipedia articles. Thanks, Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Albania

Insinuation that Serbia may somehow border Albania needs to be instantly removed as it is against NPOV policies. Serbia has no border with Albania due to the Republic of Kosovo. Note that I am not disputing the 'dispute', but am going along with the reliable sources which all say Kosovo is a country. --Thelostranger (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I have made the changes since nobody objected to the above. The article was set up for it anyhow because the Serbian population of 7 million is Serbia's border without Kosovo. --Thelostranger (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock:Edin balgarin.

Reverted (not by myself). Have you found /Archive 7#Albania borders Serbia and understood the concerns ? No such user (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Population of Serbia including Kosovo and Metohija

There is a section dediceted to the Population of Serbia but without Kosovo and Metohija. There has to be a section with the population of serbia with Kosovo and Metohija like the section with the area of the country. 46.33.202.84 (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

History: WW2

Should be "The Siege of Kraljevo" not "Siege of Kraljevo" Migy007 (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Elimination of minorities

I don't understand why the breakdown of minorities by ethnic groups is being removed. Jingiby (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9.11.2022, Human Development Index

In the Article it says "Serbia is an upper-middle income economy, ranked 64th in the Human Development Index domain." Serbia is actually ranked 63rd in the Human Development Index domain (New Data released on 8. September 2022) and shares its rank with Georgia and Mauritius. My proposal would be "Serbia is an upper-middle income economy, ranked 63rd in the Human Development Index domain."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index Swissastronaut (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Serbian national anthem.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Kosvo

Can someone please fix "Kosvo" in the first paragraph? "Serbia without Kosovo has about 6.7 million inhabitants, about 8.4 million if Kosvo is included". TIA! 62.4.45.2 (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. CMD (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2023

change gdp per capita from $24,804 (PPP, 2022, excluding Kosovo), $9,164 (nominal, 2022, excluding Kosovo) to $11,015 (nominal, 2023 est.), $27,100 (PPP, 2023 est.) Djordle (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PianoDan (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2023

It shares land borders with Hungary to the north, Romania to the northeast, Bulgaria to the southeast, North Macedonia to the south, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina to the west, and Montenegro to the southwest, and claims a border with Albania through the disputed territory of southern serbian province of Kosovo & Metohija (full name) . Davor Slo Zg Lika (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Accurately described factual state of borders and other facts according to international laws and charters, UN 1244. Davor Slo Zg Lika (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. CMD (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2023

Add a wiki link to United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1 in the last paragraph of "Foreign relations". 93.72.49.123 (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Serbia Product Exports (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Blurry map

Why is the map so blurry? 165.234.101.99 (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Because it's a low resolution raster image, when it should be an svg.—Alalch E. 12:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

"Serubia" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Serubia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 23 § Serubia until a consensus is reached. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2023

In one of the paragraphs it says that serbia was given independence on 5 June 2006 when infact they were given independence on 4 June 2006 BosnianHelper (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Crime

@Theonewithreason I don't see how adding a link to Crime in Serbia is an "assertion", that Serbia has crime is a fact, as you likely know the country recently had two mass shootings within days of each other. As for your examples, Crime in the United States is linked on United States, in fact it has its own section on the article. On the United Kingdom article crime is also mentioned and a statistical article on it is linked. Germany as well covers crime. Serbia and Russia despite having notable instances of crime for whatever reason has almost no information on it. I added it as a link because it might actually be WP:UNDUE to create a crime section, but I don't think a link in the "see also" section is remotely undue. TylerBurden (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Italy also had tragic situation today, but the crime section is not a part of Italy article, that means that certain balance should be applied for all countries, as for your comment about Serbia having notable instances of crime, comparing to above mentioned countries, is not on that level, actually those events are not common in Balkan region. Theonewithreason (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Theonewithreason I don't think whataboutism is a strong argument here, we are talking about Serbia now, not Italy or other countries whose issues should be solved on their respective talk pages. Crime in Serbia is not an anomaly, nor is its coverage. For example, its organized crime rates are considered high, ranking 33rd in the Global Organised Crime Index for 2021 according to this source with issues including corruption and human trafficking. I just noticed that the article has a "Law and criminal justice" section, the natural thing to do would be adding the link there. TylerBurden (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

And I am saying that consistency should be applied to all countries, not to some or what you think that should have its own section because you think that crime excels there, I mentioned Italy because it had its own situation also a few days ago. Yet don′t see any mentioning there. Also I don′t think that your cherry picking of the certain sources which mention corruption is a strong argument here, comparing to other crimes. Example murder rate by this source is 1.02 per 100 000 people which is still very low comparing to USA with 6.52, Russia 7.33, France 1.33, Brazil 22.45 or even Sweden with 1.23, etc. Theonewithreason (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

How is mentioning Serbia's high rate of organized crime "cherry picking"? You could argue you just did that by selecting a specific crime that Serbia doesn't have a high rate in, ignoring all other crimes. It seems very odd to oppose a link added even to the relevant section, this is Wikipedia, not a Serbian tourism site where "negative" information cannot be presented. For even a link to be WP:UNDUE Serbian crime would have to be virtually uncovered by reliable sources, which it very much is not. If you are just going to keep talking about other countries, it might be better to start an RfC for further input. TylerBurden (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Because you mentioned corruption, and I showed you there is much more to a crime than just corruption. I also said that if you wish to put it on this page, you should also put it on other pages as well, balance it. I mentioned that 3 times already, otherwise you are giving a false weight to an article that crime in Serbia is something way more common than in other countries, which is not. Theonewithreason (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

By the way to end this conversation, I just checked the link Outline of Serbia and over there there is also a crime in Serbia, with all other links connected to Serbia. So here you go it is covered. Theonewithreason (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not how due weight works, and no Serbia having a link to its crime article (which readers may be interested in) does not at all mean that it's more or less common, it's simply a tool for readers to access a related article highly relevant to the law section. By your index logic, are you saying all links on this article that also exist on the index article should be removed then, since they are "covered"? TylerBurden (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

No but obviously a less covered ones are still redirected to this link, which in my opinion is practical. Is someone is really interested in crime in Serbia they will probably first go directly to that article, not here.Theonewithreason (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a double standard, you don't think Crime in Serbia can be linked here because it is included on the index article, but you're fine with other ones being on both. What's the point of having a "Law and criminal justice" section if you are not going to include any mention of crime, let alone a link? Law of Serbia is rightfully linked under that section, that's where it would be logical to also include Crime in Serbia as a "see also" entry. TylerBurden (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Well I could go easily other way and ask you why don′t we put all unused links and put them in the article or in see also section, and why just crime in Serbia. Since we are talking about double standards.Theonewithreason (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Right, I think we have come as far as we are going to by the two of us, since we appear to have a bit of a WP:STONEWALLING issue here. I am going to start an RfC so uninvolved editors can participate and a consensus can be built. TylerBurden (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2023

Change all references to “altitude” to “elevation”. As an earth scientist, I noticed this right away. However, I’d love to visit this country. Thank you. 74.93.90.165 (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC on ″Crime in Serbia″ link in ″Law and criminal justice″ section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should a link to Crime in Serbia be included as a ″see also″ entry under the section ″Law and criminal justice″? --TylerBurden (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Per MOS:BUILD, readers should have easy access to relevant articles, a section about law and justice is incomplete without a link to the crimes they are there for, which is not only relevant but may be of interest to the reader who as of now only gets information about what agencies combat the crime and the judicial system. --TylerBurden (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: in see also section there is already a link Index of Serbia-related articles which also covers a crime in Serbia link and article, adding more links to this section would be WP:UNDUE since it could give a reason to post even more links and it is not a common practice in other related articles, i.e USA,United Kingdom,Russia,Italy etc. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Having to go to the index article at the bottom of the article, click on it, and scroll on it assuming it has the link is the opposite of ″easy access″ when there is a relevant section for the link. TylerBurden (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  For disclosure I have mentioned this RfC on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. TylerBurden (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Currently, the "Law and criminal justice" subsection has "Main article: Law of Serbia", which covers the "Law" part of the title. Is Crime in Serbia not the main article for the "and criminal justice" part? CMD (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Chipmunkdavis To answer your question: Yes. I made the same point in the discussion above. TylerBurden (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  No you did not, there is a difference between law and criminal justice section what is editor implying and see also section. Theonewithreason (talk) 06:26, 05 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Theonewithreason I don't know why you're denying that when the discussion is visible for anyone interested in reading it, I very clearly stated that the logical thing to do would be to place the link in that section right here TylerBurden (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  I am not denying anything, I am still opposing, but the fact is that the Editor asked about the criminal and law section not about see also section which is where you wish to put it. Theonewithreason (talk) 06:26, 05 June 2023 (UTC)

  Apparently you are not able to read the title RfC, or you have a severe language barrier. I initially mentioned the see also section, then when I discovered the Law and criminal justice section that is where I said it should go, to which you still continued to oppose in order to protect Serbia's image. Does this RfC say "RfC on ″Crime in Serbia″ link in ″see also″ section"? We are reaching WP:CIR levels here. TylerBurden (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don′t have a language barrier, also I do recognise a WP:Gaming quite well when I see it, it has nothing to do with countries' image, since image of a country is not build on wikipedia, it is a matter of balancing, meaning something being equally represented on wp articles. you obviously have some issues with insulting people when you lack argumentations, so I would kindly ask you to stop it.Theonewithreason (talk) 17:24, 06 June 2023 (UTC)

  How is adding a relevant link to a section "gaming the system"? I think I have been rather patient with you, but now on top of you WP:STONEWALLING, you are straight up lying about what I am suggesting. You are not actually responding to any of my points, why do you claim I am suggesting adding the link to the see also saction when the RfC makes it clear it is for the law and criminal justice section? And what actual argument do you have against doing so, other than in your opinion not making Serbia "look bad"? TylerBurden (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I asked you to stop attacking me, you are also WP:Bludgeon the page, my vote is clear. I am opposing because of balancing issues. Like I said it before. Theonewithreason (talk) 17:35, 06 June 2023 (UTC)

  Calling out your disruptive behaviour is not a personal attack, you can't just lie and then start complaining about being "attacked" when called out about it. I am participating in the discussion and addressing your claims, that is not bludgeoning. If you don't want me to respond, leave your vote and don't make false claims. TylerBurden (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Please read a meaning of WP:Personal attack since you calling me a liar, another thing I already left my vote above. Have a nice day. Theonewithreason (talk) 17:42, 06 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Theonewithreason No, I said you were lying, which you were as proven above. There is a difference between calling someone a liar (a person who persistently lies) and saying someone lied when they did, the latter is the case here. Since you said you have no language barrier issues, I am not sure why you would continue to falsely victimize yourself. By ″leave your vote″ I meant leave it at that, if you don't want further response from me, don't make false claims and then accuse me of ″bludgeoning″ when I address them. Maybe it is time to take this to WP:AN/I. TylerBurden (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, mainly on the ground that Crime in Serbia is currently a poor article unworthy of prominent linking by means of {{Main}}. It's a mishmash of broad statements unsupported by data, outdated statistics (murder rate from 2012) and recent news. Editorial energy spent on quarreling in this RfC and ANI would be better directed at improving that article. No such user (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  Keeping it in hiding when there is a relevant section won't improve that, with more traffic and eyes on the article, there is more chance editors make effort to improve it. TylerBurden (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, there is no need to add this to the section. Is crime an issue in Serbia compared to other nations? They are not even in the upper half of countries among homicidal rates, bottom 10 on rape statistics, and only just recently had mass shootings. As a reader, if I saw this I would assume there is rampant crime across Serbia when in reality, it is no better than other European countries and perhaps even better than some. Seeing it highlighted in United States, Brazil, Russia, or South Africa articles makes sense due to the high incarceration rates. Conyo14 (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Seems clearly relevant, and I'm unconvinced by the oppose arguments. If the linked article is low quality, the solution is to improve it, not to remove the link. And I do not think that including the link implies that crime in Serbia is worse than in other countries – it only implies that we have a dedicated article about the topic. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This link does not imply that there's something special about crime in Serbia. There's crime in every country. It's pretty conventional and certainly useful to prominently include such a link in a country article when a "Crime in [X country]" exists. The argument that readers can use the Index of Serbia-related articles to reach this page is very strange and almost unbelievably bad. Starting this RfC was probably a little premature, as this appears to have been a dispute between two editors. It's possible that WP:3O would have resolved this. When something this obvious is discussed in an RfC, abberations of opinion forming will occur around an issue that has suddenly and irrationally become polarizing, which leads to esoteric arguments, such as the idea that an article shouldn't be linked to because it's underdeveloped... which is exactly the opposite of what should be done.
  Ultimately, this RfC can't prevent a relevant link from being included in the article due to a higher-level consensus that, well, Wikipedia uses internal links (MOS:BUILD). As soon as someone expands the 'Law and criminal justice' section with content about crime in Serbia, which is certainly due, and is currently missing, it will be necessary to link to Crime in Serbia, and no WP:LOCALCON will be able to stop this. With this in mind, this RfC is irrelevant and meaningless in a longer-term perspective.—Alalch E. 23:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image of Milošević

@Soundwaweserb Please explain the removal of the image of Slobodan Milošević in the "Breakup of Yugoslavia and political transition" section. He is clearly a focal point of the section, so an image seems appropriate. TylerBurden (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The image of Milošević adheres to all the criteria outlined in MOS:IMAGES and WP:IUP which explicitly states that "purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". Depending on whether it is viewed positively or negatively, Milosevic was a focal point in the modern history of the country! Iaof2017 (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It is up to you to give an explanation considering that it was you who added the image. What you did is a POV push. Milosevic is not the most important figure of the period. Josip Broz Tito and late PM dr Zoran Djindjic are far more important and relevant. Not to mention that there are 2 images illustrating that period. Not to mention that the description of the image is controversial. All in all, you have no consensus and having 3 images for 1 section goes against basic style-related guidelines. Now, remove the image. Soundwaweserb (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

While Tito and Djindjic may be considered significant figures, the inclusion of an image depicting Milošević does not reduces their importance. The description of the image in question is not controversial at all. It is a fact that Milošević was tried by the ICTY for his alleged role in the conflicts and tragedies in the Balkans. Iaof2017 (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Iaof2017 the addition of the image is contentious largely due to the caption His leadership became associated with numerous human tragedies and acts of violence during the breakup of Yugoslavia. Nowhere in the section are "human tragedies and acts of violence" discussed and you are clearly pushing a POV narrative by providing no solid justification for putting it in. Your addition has not helped the article and your further edit ramming is disruptive as you are not engaging with other editors or taking on suggested changes in prior edits by TylerBurden WP:DE. ElderZamzam (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

There is clearly a failure here to assume WP:GOODFAITH, just because you disagree with something, that doesn't make it POV pushing. Please try and discuss constructively without throwing accusations around. I don't think including an image of Milošević is POV pushing, and I don't think there is a good excuse to not have it present considering both his tenure and prominent featuring in the accompanying section, this is perfectly in line with the MOS. What is more debatable is the caption, while I am not opposed to the occasional lengthy caption if it is backed by RS and WP:DUE in my opinion it should reflect the article content, image captions aren't really meant to be for writing but more reflect the content in the article text itself. Unless more content regarding the atrocities he is associated with is established in the body first, it may be better to use a caption such as what I added. TylerBurden (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the editors who wish have it removed. Milosević is highly controversial individual and has been a subject of numerous protests in Serbia, even during his rule. Not to mention that the article's body barely mentions anything of his rule(WP:STRUCTURE), and with the added description on the picture, it leaves a huge burden on the attempt to keep a neutral point of view. The picture of him does not improve the article a slightest bit. --Azor (talk). 00:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

A possible solution: for the editors who believe a picture of him should be added in an article about Serbia as a country, the article's body will need a change. That includes more content regarding his politics - while keeping a neutral point of view - which includes getting rid of that description under the picture which violates WP:NPOV. This is especially due to the controversial nature of this individual. The picture is removed until the article's body seem fitting for the picture. --Azor (talk). 00:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Obvious problem of the picture insertion is caption description, stated by number of editors here. I also agree on that.Theonewithreason (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Then why not delete the picture [[7]] of Hitler from the German page so that there are no double standards? Hitler can be on the [Germany page], but Milosevic can't be on the Serbian page? Well, history cannot be erased.172.98.14.208 (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems we are again entering WP:NOTCENSORED waters like above with the link which required an RfC to be added. It should not be such a difficult thing to add relevant content to this article. Milošević was the leader of the country for a long time, during a contentious period, is notable to the country's history, not to mention is discussed in the section extensively. One cannot just remove content because they are offended by it, or because someone is controversial. That's not how a neutral encylopedia works. TylerBurden (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Denonym

There is a missing denonym in the Denonyms row. The denonym shown is Serbian, when in fact there are two denonyms, Serbian and Serb. Will someone please add the missing denonym? LavishRuler16 (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2023

Kosovo is not an internationally ‘disputed’ territory. It’s an independent country. Only Serbia thinks it is part of them - which is incorrect and harmful. From a factual standpoint - all references to Kosovo as part of Serbia (including population) should be removed as it’s a falsehood. 142.112.165.109 (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. See the lengthy discussions regarding this, including Talk:Kosovo/Archive 33#RfC. Heart ^(talk) 01:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

This is false. Many countries do not recognize Kosovo as an independent country. They include Slovakia, Russia, Laos, Mexico, Cuba, North Korea, Greece, and Spain. LavishRuler16 (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Central Europe

@Wczeran You are falsely claiming no references mention Serbia as being in Central Europe, the Worldbank one (which you just removed) says "One particular emphasis has been helping Serbia take advantage of its strategic location in central Europe through investments in transport infrastructure." That clearly mentions Serbia in Central Europe, in addition to the one including crossroads. You need to gain consensus for removal rather than continuing to remove it when opposed. TylerBurden (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Issue has been resolved, and nothing is removed, a reference with a broken link has been removed, and a reference sourced from the United Nations Economics Commission for Europe has been added. Information now corresponds with adequate references, provided in the lead rather than only in the Geography section.

In regard to your talk page entry, I was going to archive it, as I don’t see how the issue is not resolved? I have no further edits to make, and the notion that Serbia is in Southeastern and Central Europe remains, just with better referencing. Wczeran (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Wczeran Archiving is automated, what you did was simply remove the thread, it doesn't get placed into the actual archives if you just remove it, I have explained to you on your talk page why it is bad practice in more detail. If content is sourced in the body, it doesn't necessarily need the reference MOS:LEADCITE in the lead. But since Serbia being partially in Central Europe is apparently a controversial fact, then it might as well be. TylerBurden (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for your comments. My contribution to the article was only aimed to be constructive, and to make the article more accurate and reliable.

I am aware that discussions do not automatically get placed into archives upon deletion. I was not aware that the archiving of discussions is not something that is also done by users, and rather it is usually done by bots, so thanks for bringing that to my attention. Wczeran (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Genocide watch

@Iaof2017: I fail to see how this organization's opinion is due in a general section about the country's politics. Serbia certainly has some issues but I don't see what they find "alarming" in their "stages of concern" is particularly vital to this article. Per WP:ONUS, please gain consensus for this inclusion. --Griboski (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not see why you removed the image of Milošević (with its recently discussed caption that is referenced in the section of the body it accompanies) and replaced it with a different image with a WP:OR caption. TylerBurden (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Partly unsourced maybe, but it's not OR, as the section mentions protesters overthrowing the Milošević government on 5 October 2000. It's a pivotal moment in the country's history, highlighting both Milošević and the transitional democratic government. I don't have a strong opinion about which picture is better however. Griboski (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I find Griboski's image, with its corresponding caption, slightly better. It mentions Milošević, yet also highlights the country's dissatisfaction with his policy. The 5 October Overthrow was truly a symbolic event of the country's history. --Azor (talk). 20:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Then I do not really see why it can't be added without removing the image of Milošević. In every attempt to add the image, the editor has removed the Milošević image and replaced it. It seems they are both notable, with the difference being the Milošević caption is more strongly established by the sources. So just add the 5 October Overthrow as an additional image? TylerBurden (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2023

GDP is incorrect. Its less than 100 billion Historynerd1993 (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• You will need a source for this. Drmies (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Speaking of sources: this one puts the lie to this edit. Drmies (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Recent changes

Hello everyone, I want to emphasize and underline that the current photo related to the recent period of Serbian history is the right choice. The previous photo of Milošević was added through a war of changes and POV pushhing, only a month or two ago, during holiday season, when most editorrs, myself included are not as active. Btw. the photo of the same politician is already on a separate page about the history of Serbia. The mentioned political personality is certainly not more important than King Aleksandar Karađorđević, Josip Broz Tito, Koča Popović and several other personalitie. With the new-current photo, we refer to his reign as well as a key (underline, key) moment in the modern history of the country whose history we are writing about. So, the photo has more good aspects, compared to the artistic photo of the then influential politician. I will ask you not to chang it, unless you have a wide consensus, which seems not to be the case. Thank you. Soundwaweserb (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• The removal of the portrait of Milosevic is not in line with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality and consensus and could be seen as an attempt to suppress one perspective. Articles often include images of controversial figures, such as Hitler on Germany, Kim Jong Un on North Korea, Enver Hoxha on Albania and so on, to provide a well-rounded view of historical events. Eventhough the image's inclusion was reached through consensus, and this should be respected unless there are compelling reasons to remove it, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Iaof2017 (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  The earlier discussion was motivated by the inclusion/exclusion of any picture related to Milošević, rather than which picture to use. Even then, there was no sign of consensus happening. As far as I can see now, there is currently no one arguing in favor of total exclusion of all pictures related to Milošević, so I also don't see how this can be any violation of neutrality. This is a matter of preferences on which picture to use. Both are decent pictures, but as I said earlier, I prefer Griboski's picture (and caption) due to its wider historical context. --Azor (talk). 11:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

That was my original point. Milosevic and his rule should be mentioned, but a picture of just him smiling is not the best choice. Soundwaweserb (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

None of you is providing convincing arguments here. The image is good enough! Iaof2017 (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The image is good enough! is that supposed to be some kind of argument? If a consensus forms on removing the image, it will be removed. So far it seems such a consensus is starting to emerge. Khirurg (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm all in favor for the image depicting the 5 October Overthrow. It also gives readers information about controversial rule of S. M. --Ranko Nikolić (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The image was established with the caption after discussion on this very talk page, from what I remember, the people that wanted it removed argued that it was offensive. However Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, so that is not a valid reason and there is zero policy backing it to establish actual consensus. If you want to change the image, you should provide policy based reasons to do so, rather than assume bad faith and call it POV pushing. It has been stable on the article now for far longer than the proposed replacement, so wait until a formal consensus is formed per WP:STATUSQUO rather than attempting to edit war. TylerBurden (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I have searched the talkpage archives and cannot find the consensus for inclusion of the Milosevic image. Can you point out when that consensus was established? Which images are in an article is not determined by policy, but by user consensus. You arguments amount to nothing more than shifting the burden of proof (you should provide policy based reasons to do so) and status quo stonewalling (It has been stable on the article). Now, why don't you tell us the real reason you are so absoultely insistent that this image be included over scores of other possibilities? Khirurg (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The image of Slobodan Milosevic has been a contentious addition since it was first added. A consensus was previously reached on the caption text, not the image itself. The image does not meet WP:IMAGERELEVANCE as it isn’t significant to the topic. Previous discussions in July highlighted the fact that the article's body barely mentions anything of his rule - WP:STRUCTURE. We now have new objections raised based on the insignificance of Slobodan Milosevic. Adolf Hitler and Enver Hoxha appear on the Germany and Albania pages respectively because they are important figures for those countries, given their duration in power, prominence and the significant impact they had on their people. Other important figures such as Helmut Kohl and Sali Berisha do not appear on the Germany and Albania pages respectively, despite their rule coinciding with significant events. I do not see why this page should be an exception, as there are no significant arguments to keep it, it should be removed. ElderZamzam (talk) 07:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

It's true that Milosevic's rule is not extensively detailed in the article, but his image remains relevant to the understanding of the broader political context of the Balkans during his time of rule. The image also aligns with WP:NOTCENSORED that promotes the principle of providing neutral coverage even if they are controversial. Your comparisons with other articles such as those featuring Hoxha or Hitler are valid to some extent, but each article should be evaluated based on its historical factors. Whether you like it or not, his role in the breakup of Yugoslavia and the conflicts that followed and his international prominence make him a important figure in Balkan history. Iaof2017 (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Most of us seem to agree the Milosevic picture don't reflect the article's body extensively, at least not enough to completely shut down other possibilities. However, you are allegedly worried about the lack of "understanding the broader political context" by removing the Milosevic picture, but for some reason you are not finding the new image to be more effective in terms of that? The focal point of the 5 October Overthrow image appears to be substantially relevant to Milosevic's governance, in contrast to an image of him sitting and smiling. It deliberately shows the controversial rule of Milosevic. --Azor (talk). 09:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Five/six editors (Azorzal, Griboski, Soundwaweserb, Ranko Nikolić and ElderZamzam (+ possibly Khirurg) has expressed views that are in favor of a change and two editors (TylerBurden, Iaof2017) are hesitant, it is fair to say the vast majority are, in fact, accepting of the alternative picture. On top of that, considering the previous picture was never once added as a result of consensus, I see no reason to keep this discussion going any longer. --Azor (talk). 11:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to give my two cents coming across this discussion and edit wars. I think we can have this discussion without casting potential aspersions on people. The logic behind having the rebellion and overthrow of Milosevic seems to show both images could and should be included. One puts a face to a notorious figured and has a sourced caption not “pov” and the other picture shows a significant rise against this figure. To say Milosevic is not notable enough or not talked about in the article is laughable. But I agree the rebellion image is important. And doesn’t make sense to not include as it was a democratic turning point. So why not include both? Why must it be one or the other? Article is definitely large enough. And it would please both groups of editors for wishing for each image to be included. Good compromise? Saves all this back and forth arguing. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I do agree with the proposal. Iaof2017 (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

That is what I proposed above, which has recieved no response. Every attempt to add the 5 October event has coincided with removal of the Milošević image. It is now being argued that that he is not a significant part of the section, when he is in fact extensively mentioned in it. His name comes up 10 times in the section, while the 5 October event has a single mention in the second last paragraph. So how does this argument work? I have nothing against adding the second image provided it is referenced and neutrally written (like the image of Milošević), but I see zero reason behind doing that at the cost of the image, other than censorship. It may be needed to again hold an RfC to bring in uninvolved editors since Serbia is clearly a complicated Wikipedia topic, especially when it comes to anything potentially controversial. TylerBurden (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding both might create clogging and WP:SANDWICH issues in a section that already has enough images. --Griboski (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I doubt it would be any worse than how images are already placed in the other sections, there is also the option of replacing the image showcasing Serb breakaway states that are not specifically mentioned at all in the section. Otherwise, MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE is the important guideline here. The main reason for keeping the image of Milošević is that he is actually heavily established in the section, not to offend people or whatever. TylerBurden (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

A good trait by the alternative picture is that it would serve as a reference to both Milosevic and the rebellion. It increases the effectiveness of the section and provide the reader a much better overview of his controversial rule. Why have two pictures, when you can have "both in one"? Unless, of course you find his smile to be the vital part. --Azor (talk). 06:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

What does his facial expression have to do with anything, and why are you repeatedly bringing up the fact that he is smiling? "Much better overview" is very subjective, especially when talking about a photo of an event mentioned once in the section versus the man present in most of it. Again, MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. TylerBurden (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The rebellion picture and its caption holds substantial significance as it aids readers in understanding the reasons behind those rebellions, the sequence of events that led to Milosevic's overthrow, and the gradual emergence of democratic principles in Serbia. If this was solely a Milosevic biography, I would get your point and your choice to be so hesitant, but the general point of the section is to emphasize the nation's shift towards democracy. Acting as if the rebellion image is less relevant is completely out of my understanding. --Azor (talk). 21:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

It is less relevant, because it is mentioned once, whereas Milošević is mentioned throughout the section over a span covering more than a decade. If the image is so important, then add it in the place of breakaway territories which are not covered in the section at all. That combination would fit the section far better, providing both an overview of Milošević and the event that led to the end of his rule. TylerBurden (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The image depicting the events of the Fifth of October is, to repeat, a key moment in national history. The bibliography does not dispute this fact. The description of the photo mentions the political rule of Milošević. So, the photo indicates the type of his rule, how it ended and how the democratic multi-party rule in Serbia began, accordingly, I don't see that we have a particularly big topic for discussion, nor that we need two photos for 10 years of history, nor that there is censorship, because there is none. MareBG (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds more like your opinion rather than what the article actually says. TylerBurden (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Your whole point boils down to this: Because "Milošević" is the word that pops up more often, a picture of him is automatically the best choice. Sounds like you are the only one who needs to take into consideration what the article actually says. --Azor (talk). 13:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

That isn't the point at all, and I don't know how you could land at that conclusion. The image is more relevant because he is the bigger topic, not the single event, or his smile. TylerBurden (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The bigger topic is the transitional democratic government, in which the people played a key role for its implementation. Milosevic wasn't the only figure sitting on that government, there were a bunch of other key politicians (such as Aleksandar Vučić) too. You act as if this article is some kind of biography. --Azor (talk). 15:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Then where is the mention of other politicians? The only one specifically mentioned is Milošević, and the 5 October rebellion is directly related to him. There seems to be a desire to shuffle Milošević to the side in favour of a focus on Serbs "rising up" against him and shifting to democracy, as a neutral encyclopedia both should be covered. Instead of having a random picture of breakaway states not even mentioned in the section, have images depicting both Milošević and the event that ended his time in power. No one has given a single reason for why that solution doesn't work, or why the image depicting breakaway states belongs.

On a sidenote, since people are starting to claim there is consensus, there is definetely no formal consensus. The issue of WP:CANVASSING relating to Serbia topics is also something I have been privately informed about several times. The best solution if editors are unable to accept the fact that the image of Milošević is valid is to hold a formal RfC to bring in actual uninvolved editors that can look at it objectively. TylerBurden (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The 5 October was against Milosevic's government as a whole. By getting rid of Milosevic, his political allies were stripped of their power. That was crucial as scholars has described for example Vučić as the key figure in the shaping the media policies in Serbia. And for the record, I don't see how your time spent chit chatting in private is relevant to this discussion. Editors who has some experience in this part of history knows it has a complicated historical context. --Azor (talk). 21:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

So no response to the questions I posed, why is that? The "chit chatting" is directly related to this, as several editors have raised concern that Serbian editors are WP:CANVASSING to shape articles according to their liking. I share the concern since people seem to be going on their feelings here rather than following Wikipedia policy and MOS, in this case with the specific focus on removing the image of Milošević despite solutions with compromises being offered. I would rather you answer the questions than going on about government members that are not even mentioned within the section, because if they are as notable as you claim, they would be. TylerBurden (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of who is right and who is wrong here, this isn't the proper place for casting aspersions or accusations based on what someone told you in private. If you have evidence, you can present it at WP:ANI. Otherwise, stick to the topic. As a side note, it isn't uncommon at all for certain editors to patrol a high visibility article such as this one.

If you monitored Balkan topics beyond the Serbia article alone, you'd be surprised at how "complicated" it can get with editing disputes and I'm willing to bet those same people who warned you about canvassing don't exactly have clean hands either regarding their own editing block. --Griboski (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Joining in… I think the rebellion picture is a better choice since it illustrates a break from the past, the transition from authoritarian rule to democracy and the collective efforts it took; in that sense it’s perfectly illustrate a chapter called: “Breakup of Yugoslavia and political transition”. Having a portrait of Milošević here brings nothing, it oversimplifies a complex historical narrative by giving him too much importance reinforcing a one-dimensional view. It’s better to have an image that shows a more constructive representation of this period in history and helps readers focus on the broader historical context. Aeengath (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

"A portrait of Milošević here brings nothing [...] giving him too much importance": of course it does, he was central to Serbia during that period and had a profound impact on other ex-Yugoslavian countries while also contributing to major conflicts in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo. So your statement is not convincing at all at this point. Again, retaining the image of Milosevic aligns with Wikipedia's guidlines such as relevance, neutrality, consensus and particularly WP:NOTCENSORED which clearly emphasises that controversial figures should not be excluded solely on the basis of controversy. However, the proposal of TylerBurden and OyMosby to include both images is a good solution to be considered. Iaof2017 (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

what censorship? this is about relevance... having his portait does nothing to improve the comprehension of the article instead it might give the impression that he was the sole cause of the breakup which oversimplifies a complex historical event... It makes no sense for such a short section that does not provide sufficient context or information for readers who may not be familiar with the subject. The rebellion picture is exactly the opposite as it provides relevance and illustrate perfectly the section. Aeengath (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Aeengath and MareBG. Furthermore, the claims of "censorship" are total nonsense, there is no "censorship" whatsoever. It seems there is a large majority of users, myself included, that prefers the image of the demonstrations to that of Milosevic, and that's that. Khirurg (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached. Per Wikipedia consensus policy, “consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote”. There is only one editor who is pushing this, tailwinded by TylerBurden (not counting neither fish nor fowl proposition by another editor). If the problem was some fringe or outrageous claim, fine, but all this bullying of editors by wasting their Wikipedia time because of a picture… PajaBG (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You need to read WP:CON. TylerBurden (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I see no clear consensus here; please start an RfC. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm new to this discussion, but I can count, so here are facts from this discussion:

- 9 editors want the photo replaced with one they think is more appropriate

- 2 editors want to keep the photo of Milošević, including, of course, the one who pushed it last summer and has since been slowly edit warring to make sure it stays in place

- 1 editor wants to keep both pictures

I don't know how to get a clearer consensus than that, do you need 10 editors @ToBeFree? You can count on me then, because I also think the picture of Milošević is inappropriate in the context of the paragraph. Krisitor (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:CON, specifically the part where it says that consensus is not a vote. No strong policy based reasons for removing the image have been offered. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE is the relevant guideline here, and no one has refuted it. Images aren't just removed because a bunch of editors say it should be removed while failing to provide valid policy based reasons, no matter their feelings on the person in the image. TylerBurden (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I see not reason for Milosevic's photo. He is not more notable than Tito or king Alexander I or some other figures. Look, we have 1 photo for WWI and 1 photo for WWII but we have 3 images for period of 10 years, all because someone's obsession and bully-like ignoring of other editors while all moderators are asleep. 24.135.116.35 (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, anonymous user using the very strange "bullying" claim used above by another editor. This kind of thing is a great example of what makes people suspicious about conduct in Serbia related articles. You should log into your account if you have one. TylerBurden (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

serbia establishement of first state

the first form of serbian statehood was established much earlier around 630.

here is the serbian wiki, which also has sources down below in literature both foreign and serbian that confirm it.

https://sr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%A1%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0_%D1%83_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%81%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%9A%D0%B5%D0%BC_%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%83 95.33.108.192 (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2023

culure = culture 2603:8000:D300:3650:CC50:7583:DC86:35A2 (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

demographics %

its differents at the home page around 84 %, compared to the demographics page 81% serbs, which would also put the number of ethnic serbs higher than 5.3 mil within serbia if its 84% or lower if its 81% 2A01:C23:C495:F900:8027:50F8:D943:320F (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Politico "undue"

Hello @Griboski, you removed this article with the explanation that it is "undue". Politico is an established WP:RS, and Anna Baerbock is Germany's minister for foreign affairs, a top level politician, so I don't think that is undue. TylerBurden (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not a matter of the source, it's about giving undue weight to a particular individual's opinion. For example, why is the German foreign minister's opinion about Serbian foreign affairs more relevant than say, the Russian foreign minister? Or the British or American one. Not that I side with one view or the other, but high level politicians regularly comment on other countries. it doesn't mean we should include their commentaries or criticisms here. For a country article, Serbia's foreign stances can be mentioned without doing so. --Griboski (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It would be rather vague not to mention who it came from, she is a notable person with her own Wikipedia article who also happens to be the foreign minister of the largest country in the EU, so her word carries weight, which is why RS are quoting her. Mentioning the commentary without specifying who it is from would just be confusing for readers, unless you would add something such as "Germany's foreign minister", in which case it'd make sense to link her anyway. As for why her, she's the one in the source, if there are similar sources with other people then that can be added also. TylerBurden (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. I'm against giving weight/importance to any particular politician's recent views, critiques or commentary about another country's affairs. News organizations report on what high level politicians say all the time, it doesn't mean we should add their opinions here (see also WP:NOTNEWS).

The politics section should provide a neutral general overview of the important points, like the rest of the article.--Griboski (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)