Talk:Serbia/Archive 7

Edit request from, 8 November 2011
The most famous of these was Constantine the Great, the first Christian Emperor, who issued religious intolerance throughout the Empire. <I believe the author means "religious tolerance" not "intolerance".

79.122.47.19 (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ C T J F 8 3  17:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Aerodrom Nikola Tesla Beograd.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
"Serbia is a member of the UN, Council of Europe, PfP, BSEC and CEFTA. It is also a EU applicant country, which the European Commission recommended as EU candidate state as of 2011[8][9] and a self-declared neutral country."

Editors should add the OSCE to this list. As a matter of fact Serbia was presiding member of this organisation in 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klačko (talk • contribs) 23:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please add OSCE to the list of international organisation in which Serbia is a member-country
"Serbia is a member of the UN, Council of Europe, PfP, BSEC and CEFTA. It is also a EU applicant country, which the European Commission recommended as EU candidate state as of 2011[8][9] and a self-declared neutral country." Editors should add the OSCE to this list. As a matter of fact Serbia was presiding member of this organisation in 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klačko (talk • contribs) 23:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Outdated Information
Please update the information found on this article. For one, the census has been carried out in October and the estimate results should have been announced by now. Also, the EU has postponed Serbia's candidacy to March or February next year. Also, unemployment is actually at 19.2% in 2010, as well as some other things related to the economy (can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Serbia). Please update this information as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dejanxd (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Motto
The motto of Serbia is "Unity Saves the Serbs", why is it not added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.82.211 (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not official, so there is no need to. Mm.srb (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

768?
I don't get it. Why is 768 AD the first Serbian statehood date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SavoRastko (talk • contribs) 13:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 January 2012
Change last picture caption. Djokovic is a "FIVE-time" Grand Slam champion.

24.190.209.109 (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. No such user (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Airbrushing history?
It is almost beyond belief that a history of Serbia (even a brief one) should fail to mention Serbia's role in the breakup of Jugoslavia, the invasion of Croatia and the role of Serb forces in Bosnia and Hercegovina. The lack of such mentions brings into serious question whether this article can be considered impartial and balanced. It may be difficult to find wording that would be acceptable to Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks, but an attempt should be made. The present glaring hole is the equivalent of the article on Northern Ireland failing to mention the Troubles, or the article on Germany omitting the Nazis! Skinsmoke (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed now, I believe . No such user (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent broad edit
Buttons made an edit affecting several different parts of the article. These include changing the list of events and removing the population, Environmental Protection Agency, and the note that Belgrade is among the largest cities in Southeast Europe. Other parts of the edit are non-controversial. I reverted this because there was no edit summary, and some of the changes were not unambiguously an improvement. However, No such user reverted again. Can either of them explain the need for the more controversial parts of this edit? Superm401 - Talk 09:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone improves 20 things, and you disagree with another 3, then it's prudent just to revert those 3, manually if necessary, not everything. I don't have strong opinion about those removed sentences; their relevance is rather questionable. No such user (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That wasn't quite the way I saw the ratio. Also, some of the changes were neither wrong nor necessary (e.g. capitalizing templates).  However, I've tried to just revert the changes that I think need discussion. Superm401 - Talk 22:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? You are nitpicking over my minor edits? Jesus, some people have no life... my edits are almost always aesthetic, summaries or grammatical in nature, the only "controversial edit" You could argue that I made was removing one of the "important dates" from the table, one which has been routinely discussed on this talk page as not being a date of formation of Serbia. Further the Belgrade population data is constantly altered back and fourth on the Belgrade article with little compromise over the editors, so its best to just leave it out. And lastly, Belgrade's population is about the average size among Southeast European capitals, nothing encyclopedic there. P.S. I am reverting you're revert until you can formulate an actual legitimate argument against mine. Best of luck, Buttons (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

edit request
please increase height of 'serbia demografics' image as it cuts image in half. it is in 'demografics' section. 178.148.216.85 (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Semi-presidential or parliamentary republic?
In Serbian constitution it is stated that Serbia is parlamentary republic. However, in many articles, for example, in this one: http://www.semipresidentialism.com/The_Semi-presidential_One/Blog/Entries/2011/8/31_Historic_cases_of_semi-presidentialism_-_Peru_2.html is clearly stated that Serbia is semi-presidential republic, because president is elected directly. Should we, at least, add a footnote?--DustBGD89-3 (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, no constitution in the world will say that "Foo is a semi-presidential republic", so it is not a particularly good source. Technically, parliament is always the highest body in every democracy. However, nature of the system is judged by analysts and politologists, and in this case they're fairly unanimous in classifying Serbian as "semi-presidential". No such user (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. So, what should we do?--DustBGD89-3 (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah I see. I thought that we had "semi-presidential" mentioned somewhere in the article, and I'm sure it used to be here. However, it's not. It has been discussed long time ago, see Talk:Serbia/Archive 4, but with no clear conclusion. If not in the infobox, that should be mentioned in Politics section, as well as in Politics of Serbia. However, the source you bring is not reliable, being a blog. We need to find something better than that. This one is, unfortunately, a student's work, so it's out too. http://www.google.rs/search?q=Serbia+semi-presidential+system gives some useful hits, but it should be researched a bit more. No such user (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As I saw on other Wikipedia pages, there is possibility that president is elected directly even in parliamentary system. However, in practice, it is more than obvious that incumbant influenced formation of executive branch and even more influenced Serbia`s politics. I would even say that he- by doing that- exceeded some of his constitutional powers (that should be largely ceremonial), so Serbia is heading towards so called "super-presidency", as stated in some of articles. --DustBGD89-3 (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I was really surprised to read that Serbia is a parliamentary republic because i had the impression that it was a presidential or a semi-presidential republic. Can somebody please confirm that in the constitution is written specifically a parliamentary republic? While it is not uncommon to directly elect a president in a parliamentary republic the difference is that the position is mostly symbolical and that real power is vested in the prime minister, however this doesn't seem to be the case with Serbia. If it is true that the constitution states parliamentary republic while giving extended power to the president than i would say that this is a very surprising mistake that any political scientist should know. Purusbonum (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Karađorđe Petrović
Would it be possible to include the picture of Karađorđe Petrović again on the article about Serbia? He is named as the founder of the modern Serbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.51.48 (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * His image has been added.--Zoupan (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Pictures
I can see that there is some cind of edit war, conserning pictures which shoud be featured on this article. For example we have two pictures on Nemanjić dynasty. They are indeed important, maybe the most important, but they ruled for ~200 years, and Middle Ages lasted from the 5th century to the 15th century. I added some other picture, few days ago, and now it's simply gone. There is no need to be ignorant. My suggestion is that we should talk here, about it.

Mm.srb (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 March 2012
To add information about Serbia's armed forces and foreign relations. Add information to how old Serbia's armed forces are, what they do, and their relations with other armies. Add information about Serbia's foreign relations and who they have relations with and who they have the best and worst relations with.

Europe562 (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The template is for specific requests which someone else will type in for you. Since you are registered, Just wait four days and make three or four more edits and you will be able to edit this article. Welcome, Celestra (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 March 2012
Please include a picture of Vuk Jeremic, Mirko Cvetkovic, and Dragan Sutanovic and a picture of the palace of Serbia and the presidential house.

184.6.145.76 (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The template is for specific requests. You will need to find pictures which comply with our image use policy and find someone willing to upload them for you, then open a new request saying where you want the picture to be. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Map - Administrative division
Could someone add a map for Administrative division ? Like it's done here for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia#Administrative_divisions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia#Administrative_division — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm.srb (talk • contribs) 14:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Undid Ottomanist POV
I have undone this edit on the ground that it is strongly pro-Ottomanist pov (after all, the user's name says it quite clearly) and gives undue weight to views that are still controversial and somewhat partisan. While the material is indeed sourced, it presents what are controversial matters and subjects of dispute among scholars and uncontroversial facts, and this the definition of undue weight. Also, it is poorly written, with an editorializing and partisan tone ("However, modern Ottomanist and post-constructivist scholars have refuted" and again with the "However, modern Ottomanist and post-constructivist scholars"), and as such is inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. Athenean (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's just analyse what you just wrote "gives undue weight to views that are still controversial" - controversial to whom? Who are these "scholars" who dispute the works of a Greek anthropologist (Kitromilides) who relied on Orthodox priests' biography for his views of the Ottoman empire?


 * If it was poorly written, then use your skills to edit, but don't remove wholesourced sections - something which is against wikipedia rules. I will revert your edit Ottomanist (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the edit for now per WP:BRD, but sources have been listed. Anthenean, you should provide evidence for a sources conflict. If you can't, the edit should go through. Ottomanist, please consider waiting a while for Athenean to show evidence with regard to the existence of a controversy. -- Director  ( talk )  07:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I need a few days to conduct a proper literature search, but what I especially object to are the tenor and slant of Ottomanist's edits, as well as their relevance to the article. For example here, in the last paragraph, he takes the previous sourced wording and adds "According to the nationalist reading of history...".  Ottomanist's characterization is not sourced, it is OR.  There are plenty of sources that attest to the brutality, arbitraryness and capricious nature of Ottoman rule in the Balkans, and no, they are not "nationalist", and it's not hard to find them if one is willing to look .  Ottomanist is clearly trying to portray the Ottoman period in a positive light, that's why he labels descriptions of the brutality of Ottoman rule as "nationalist", while describing "Ottomanist (no pun intended) sources as "modern" and "post-constructivist" .  "Post-constructivist" doesn't even mean anything, it is just an attempt to associate the Ottomanist POV with positive sounding words like "constructive" and "modern".  Such labels should be avoided.  The claim that the Serb migrations have been "refuted" is similarly POV.  Anscombe and especially Malcolm are highly partisan sources, they have not "refuted" anything.  "Refuted" implies a certain finality, that the matter has been closed.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Lastly, and most importantly, it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss how religiously tolerant the Ottoman Empire was.  There are plenty of articles for that, e.g. Millet system, Religion in the Ottoman Empire, but the function of the history section of this article is to discuss Ottoman rule in the territory of Serbia, which mostly consists of failed rebellions and bloody reprisals, and little else.  Athenean (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Specious arguments won't do any good here. I provided sources as per wikipedia guidelines, and you say you "need a few days to do a literature search" -- why would you need to do that if you're already convinced Noel Malcom and Anscombe are biased? Moreover, I think you'll find historians have moved away from seeing hundreds of years of Ottoman rule as "mostly [consisting] of failed rebellions and bloody reprisals." I'll give it a few days and revert to the previous sourced edits.


 * You have shot your self in the foot by referring to a work by Inalcik, Faroqhi and Quataert, who are all Ottomanists of the highest standing, but who don't agree with your outdated historiography. Ottomanist (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Athenean. First of all, I suggest you conduct a literature search and provide sources that contradict the statements and/or "tone" of edit. If there aren't any, we move on. Next, what I propose is that you point out exactly which sentences (or parts thereof or reoccurring phrases) you consider biased, and then Ottomanist can show us a few direct quotations that justify phrases like "according to the nationalist reading of history" (specifically in that case one would require a source that uses a similar phrase, I assume there is one?), etc.


 * Personally, from what I can see, there is a certain "slant" in the added text. However, as sources have been listed, I can only assume they have been followed? Perhaps Ottomanist can copy-down a few quotations from the listed sources that he believes support his position? For example, a quotation from a source with the phrase "nationalist reading of history" would support the usage of such a phrase in a sentence etc. (we ourselves can certainly not invent "readings" of history). That way we can rest at ease that the tone of the scholarly reference has been conveyed faithfully (i.e. that there is no "slant"). Ottomanist?


 * Basically what I'm saying is that, since a source is listed, there are only three things we need to concern ourselves with: 1. is the source reliable? 2. has its position been conveyed faithfully? and 3. are there contradicting sources? Since the sources seem reliable enough, only the other two questions need concern us. -- Director  ( talk )  06:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, looking at the latest edit by Ottomanist, there are three new sources that are introduced. Two of them regard the Serb Migrations out of Kosovo, the other is Kitromilidis regarding religious freedom in the Ottoman Empire. Regarding the first two, Anscombe and Malcolm, they challenge the Serb migrations, however this is a minority viewpoint.  It is trivial to find contradicting sources, and many of them , and all of high quality.  Furthermore, while Anscombe's and Malcolm's challenge to the Serb migrations is noted in the article on the Great Serb Migrations, considering that theirs is a recent and minority view, their inclusion here is beyond the scope of the article, i.e. it is undue weight.  Regarding Kitromilidis, I do not dispute that Christians were allowed to practice their faith freely in the Ottoman Empire, however once again I feel this is a question of undue weight.  One sentence would be ok, but 3 is far too much.  In addition, if we were to include a sentence about religion in the Ottoman Empire, we should then also mention the various forms of discrimination that Christians in the Ottoman empire faced, as detailed here  (see Ch. 2).  Labeling of sources as "nationalist", "post-constructivist", etc...should also be avoided.  Lastly, Ottomanist's clumsy and disruptive attempts at canvassing users he thinks are sympathetic to his POV are also noted  .Athenean (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but your sources don't hold up to scrutiny. Anscombe is an expert in Ottoman history (and he challenges Noel Malcolm - far from agreeing with him). The sources you provided (such as Banac), are studies on the first Yugoslav Kingdom, not the Ottoman Empire - besides, he's explaining Serbian ideas about Kosovo, not stating historical facts. As with your earlier attempt to present sources (which actually dismissed nationalist historiographies), your other sources, such as Osman Karatay, don't even deal in detail with what you're arguing about, same with many of the other sources who only mention the word "Serb migration" without even discussing the supposed event. Read what the experts have to say, found here, and what your own recommendation Faroqhi says.

Direktor, I propose a sentence like this: "According to scholars who have researched the Ottoman Empire, the Great Serb migration was either much smaller than originally stated by Serb writers (source Noel Malcolm) or it did not occur at all (source Anscombe). Other writers contend it did happen (source Serb historians and other non-specialists Athenean mentioned)." Ottomanist (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Athenean
 * I don't think a simple search on Google Books will do the trick. The bare minimum is an author, a year, and a page number. Preferably also a brief quotation and/or link. List a few sources in such a manner that contradict Ottomanist's position, and you'll have shown a source conflict. Please be careful, however, to only list sources if they're describing their own position, and not someone else's.
 * WP:CANVASSING is annoying but its usually pretty useless. This isn't a democracy, and, in my experience, no amount of "pressure" will get an edit through without consensus.
 * @Ottomanist
 * Lets please not WP:CANVASS people, Ottomianist. Whatever may be the actual case, it makes you look like you don't have the sources, and need pals to push something through. Also as I said, its pretty useless. All the more for being noticed.
 * Firstly, we do not require a scholar to be a specialist in a particular field in order to count him as a reliable source. An author even need not necessarily be a professional historian. If its a published scholarly work - its a valid, reliable source. That's all that matters. Banac is a respected historian (from Yale iirc, and he's not Serbian) and it doesn't matter whether his study primarily focuses on the Ottoman period or not. If, however, the author is not stating his own opinion, but is describing the opinions of laymen, then we must disregard such statements. But it doesn't really matter much what the primary focus of a study is, as long as a scholar presents his position on a subject.
 * Secondly, we cannot make statements on behalf of all "scholars who have researched the Ottoman Empire" - there must be thousands upon thousands of them. If there is a sources conflict, and we choose to describe it in the text - we list the sources by name.
 * P.S. I've had a look around, and my general impression is that most authors accept that the "Great Serb Migrations" did occur, but that this conservative position is challenged by a number of authors. I've not had the time to research the matter thoroughly, though. -- Director  ( talk )  00:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I kindly request that you take a quick look at the work by Anscombe, the link is provided, where he deals with historiography (how history has been written, and the limitations of the sources, etc.,). Banac is a historian of the Yugoslav period (he's Croatian, but that's not even the point here?) - the point is that that he's describing an opinion not saying he agrees or disagrees. Again, I urge you to read the Anscombe article to get a clearer picture about the Serb migration.

Secondly, my whole section, which was sourced with an author called Kitromilides, who talked about how the Ottoman Empire helped to forge a common Orthodox worldview among Balkan people was deleted. Against wikipedia rules to remove sourced material? I will restore this, but I would rather do it with consent.

(P.S. post-constructivist scholars are people who don't see ethnicity or nationality as 'primordial' and fully-formed to begin with, but is 'constructed' over time, using history, myths and other devices) Ottomanist (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, it is not acceptable to disregard or sideline sources based on what period they primarily focus on. That's not WP:V. Also, explicit agreement is not necessary, nor is the "its an opinion" line an acceptable excuse: it is precisely the educated opinions of published scholars that we're looking for.


 * That also means, however, that we should by no means disregard the sources you've presented. They certainly do challenge the existence/extent of the "Great Serb Migrations". I don't think there's any chance we'll end up omitting them. What I'd like to see now, are about a half-dozen properly cited sources for the "Great Serb Migrations" (if there are any), so that we can finally conclusively establish a sources conflict. Then, we should evaluate which position has more support, and move on from there. Its always annoying when there's a sources conflict, there's no easy way about it. -- Director  ( talk )  10:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I don't mean to bang on about this but Banac in the sourced text is speaking of an opinion crucial to Serbian claims on Kosovo - he isn't discussing whether he agrees with it - so he can't be used to 'verify' it (moreover, he isn't the biggest fans of Serbs anyways!). I agree with you, let users provide their sources, and I'll provide quotations from the ones I've used. Then we can work on a good article. Ottomanist (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) Like I said earlier, it's not hard to find good sources on the Serb Migrations. One must really try to look the other way in order not to.

1. Velikonja, Mitja. Religious Separation and Political Intolerance in Bosnia-Herzegovina - Page 76. Texas A&M Press, 2003.

2. Mitev, Plaven. Empires and Peninsulas: Southeastern Europe Between Karlowitz and the Peace of Adrianople 1699-1829 - Page 172. Lit Verlag Munster, 2010.

3. Lampe, John R. Yugoslavia As History: Twice There Was a Country - Page 55. Cambridge University Press, 2000.

4. Bucur, Maria, and Meriwether Wingfield, Nancy. Staging the Past: The Politics of Commemoration in Habsburg Central Europe, from 1848 to the Present - Page 237. Purdue University Press, 2001.

5. Popović, Tanya. Prince Marko: the hero of South Slavic epics - Page 38. Syracuse University Press, 1988.

6. Aleksov, Bojan. Religious dissent between the modern and the national: Nazarenes in Hungary and Serbia, 1850-1914. - Page 32. Otto Harrassowtix Verlag, 2006.

7. Sugar, Peter F. Southeastern Europe under Ottoman rule, 1354-1804 - Page 309. University of Washington Press, 1993. 8. Dutceac Segesten, Anamaria. Myth, Identity, and Conflict: A Comparative Analysis of Romanian and Serbian Textbooks. Lexington Books, 2011.

9. Ingrao, Charles, Samardžić, Nikola, and Pesalj Jovan. The Peace of Passarowitz, 1718 - Page 28. Purdue University Press, 2011.

10. Safran, William, and Máiz, Ramón. Identity and Territorial Autonomy in Plural Societies - Page 176. Routledge, 2000.

11. Kostovicova, Denisa. Kosovo: the politics of identity and space - Page 150, Routledge, 2005. 12. Jelavich, Charles, and Jelavich, Barbara. The Balkans in Transition: Essays on the Development of Balkan Life and Politics Since the Eighteenth Century - Page 98. University of California Press, 1963.

13. Alexander, Ronelle. Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, a Grammar: With Sociolinguistic Commentary - Page 416. University of Wisconsin Press, 2006.

14. Byron, Reginald, and Kockel, Ullrich. Negotiating Culture: Moving, Mixing and Memory in Contemporary Europe - Page 147. LIT Verlag Munster, 2006.

15. Liotta, P.H. Dismembering the State: The Death of Yugoslavia and Why It Matters - Page 200. Lexington Books, 2001.

16. Meier, Viktor. Yugoslavia: A History of Its Demise - Page 24. Routledge, 1999.

17. Elsie, Robert. Historical Dictionary of Kosovo - Page 118. Scarecrow Press, 2010.

I know you asked for only half a dozen Direktor, but within a couple of hours of searching I found well over a dozen. And there are many, many more. I obviously cannot list them all here, but you get the idea (that was the point of my earlier Google Search). Finding sources is as easy as searching for "Serb migrations" or "Serb migrations 1690", and this was one of the easier searches I have done. From my reading of the literature, it appears that the Serb migrations out of Kosovo in 1690 and later years are a historical fact that is not disputed by the academic community. It is characteristic that even sources sympathetic to the Albanian cause, such as Robert Elsie and Noel Malcolm do not dispute the veracity of these events. While it may be true that Serbian nationalist historiography has exaggerated the size of the migrations, that does not call into question their veracity, nor is it within the scope of this article to discuss this. Against this massive array of sources, all we have is the one paper by Anscombe, which to my knowledge is the only source that explicitly challenges the existence of the Serb migrations. Athenean (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Right :). Yes, like I said, it seems that the Great Serb Migrations are the majority position - which is being challenged by a number of authors. The issue now is to see how much emphasis is required for the "challengers". The range would be:
 * 1. presenting the two positions equally
 * 2. presenting the "challenger" position as a widespread position (along the lines of "the great serb migrations are, however, disputed by some scholars")
 * 3. simply listing the few "challenger" authors (e.g. "Historians XY and ZX dispute the existence of the migrations")
 * 4. disregarding the "challenge" entirely as a WP:FRINGE view.
 * That all depends on the number of authors we find that oppose the migrations. How many such sources can you find, Ottomanist? -- Director  ( talk )  17:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

What we have to understand about writing history is that it is often a tool for political ideology. Moreover, historiography changes all the time, as new sources come to light. The best way to present the issue is to go for option three, since it represents the latest research (Anscombe's paper) in the field by an expert whose paper is peer reviewed and accepted by a highly reputable body (The International History Review) as sound scientific research. Ottomanist (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that option three would probably be optimal, with the source we've seen so far. This means we elaborate on the migrations normally, but we add a small caveat explaining that authors XX and XY and ZZ challenge the above. Sound alright? -- Director  ( talk )  06:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, do you think we should present changes here or just make them then discuss? Ottomanist (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a question of due weight here. I mean, we are taking about a single paper.  It is telling that even though the paper was published in 2006, it hasn't been cited in the literature (as far as I can tell) and Anscombe's view hasn't been adopted by the scholarly community.  Some of the sources I have provided above are from after 2006, and they do not cast doubt on the veracity of the migrations.  While Anscombe's paper can and should be mentioned in the article on the Great Serb Migrations, I think adding it here gives undue weight to what is a minority position in what is a rather general article.  Thus, I think the paper should be left out and the issue of the Serb Migrations is best discussed in detail at Great Serb Migrations.  This article only meant to provide a a summary style version of Serbia's history, not get into details like which scholar challenges what and which other scholars challenge that in turn, etc.,.  Athenean (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Another option is to avoid the whole issue by simply not mention the Great Serb Migrations at all, by just saying that southern Serbia was depopulated by constant warfare and uprisings and leaving it at that, which is both true and easily sourced. Athenean (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, we should leave that to Great Serb Migrations articles. This is main and general article about Serbia, and should not deal with minority positions. Just imagine the mess that wiki would be if we do that. Only Great Serb Migrations article is good for that, not this one, for sure. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 21:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point of our discussion above. There are two reliable expert scholars who both question the extent (or the existence rather) of the supposed migration. That is enough to merit a mention. Ottomanist (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We are not asking that question here. Why are you pushing, there is really no need to mention those thing in here. Go to Great Serb Migrations with that. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 22:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly some have failed to glance properly at the discussion in question. Another solution is to scrap mention of the supposed migration altogether and focus on the page which deals specifically with it. Ottomanist (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

History section
The section Ottoman and Austrian Rule needs some additions or changes Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) According to Somel, "The Serbian patriarchate which had been abolished in 1459 was reestablished in 1557; this provided the continuation of Serbian cultural traditions within the empire".(S.Aksin Somel :Historical Dictionary of the Ottoman Empire, Scarecrow Press Oxford,  2003, ISBN 0 8108 4332-3 p 268)
 * 2) It may be added that the Ottoman millet system was a partial autonomy . According to Shaw, "was created the millet system of autonomous self-government under religious leaders" (Stanford Shaw: History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Cambridge Press, ISBN 0 521 29163 1 p.59)
 * 3) Banat Uprising should be reworded . Actually it was a part of the Long War between the Ottomans and the Habsburgs. According to Agaston-Masters, "Serbs took an active part as opponents of the Ottomans, including organizing uprisings" (Agoston-Masters:Encyclopaedia of the Ottoman Empire ISBN-10: 0-8160-6259-5, p.518)
 * 4) It is claimed that "Vojvodina endured a century long Ottoman occupation before being ceded to the Habsburg Empire in the 17th–18th centuries." Technically the last part of this sentence is not correct. Because Vojvodina was ceded to Habsburgs by the treaties Karlowits and Passarowitz the first in 1699 and the second in 1718. Thus in the 17th century Vojvodina was not a part of Habsburg Empire.
 * Thanks for bringing important sources. Will make relevant changes. Ottomanist (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, more work needs to be done since the Middle Ages section cuts into vital parts of the Ottoman period. A map will also be needed to show the size of Serbia during the Ottoman period. Ottomanist (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't use sources like Stanford Shaw. He is extremely partisan, outdated, and his work has been heavily criticized by other scholars.  FYI, the Patriarchate of Pec was abolished in 1766, I thought you would know that.  So I replaced Shaw with that. Also, please don't change wording while keeping the same source (like you did for the sentence about the Sanjak of Smederevo), that could be interpreted as intellectual dishonesty.  The source was anyway not working, so I replaced it with a much better source. Athenean (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I kindly request that you stop presenting your self as some sort of prominent historian who can discount the works of Proffessor Shaw. Name me one historian who hasn't had their work criticised? You are not here to conduct original research, but to contribute to the making of an encyclopaedia based mainly on secondary sources. Thus you should make changes and refrain from personal attacks about peoples honesty and assume good faith. (sorry to bring this here, but Athenean doesn't respond on his talk page, which is highly rude). Ottomanist (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Not engaging in any kind of original research. The (long) criticism section on the Stanford J. Shaw article, which you would do well to read, is very well sourced.  I don't recall being under any obligation to respond to you on my talkpage, but one reason I can think of for not doing so is so as to encourage you to stay away from my talkpage, which I would prefer. Athenean (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue some editors have is that new research into the Ottoman period goes against romantic mythologies which are central to many nationalisms in the Balkans today, indeed, they are part of the identity of many nations. The construction of the Greek nation from many disparate ethno-linguistic groups relies particularly on the idea of a 'Turkish yoke' holding back the 'natural' expression of the so-called Greek nation. Thankfully, academia is not interested in constructing nations but with deconstructing mythologies and conducting scientific analyses of sources. If that doesn't suit some editors, then a modern encyclopaedia like Wikipedia isn't for them - especially not in the the long run since scholarship will keep debunking nationalist myths. Ottomanist (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

History
This page suffers from a totally biased, nationalist reading of history. It reflects none of the recent research and historiographical developments that scholars have made. I have tried to include some of these (all sourced, off course). I would like to reiterate that wikipedia is not about writing up nationalist myths, but about presenting the most common held views of scholars. Ottomanist (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This page suffers not from a totally biased, nationalist reading of history. It reflects of course recent research and historiographical developments that scholars have made. From your point of view this may be so, but look at the page of times over the Ottoman Empire, than you see which side is suffering totally biased, nationalist reading of history.Best wishes--Nado158 (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand that, I've managed to add a few sources which bring the Ottoman part unto scratch. Ottomanist (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ottomanist is fully right, I must agree with his opinion: 'cause this far nationalistic article contains all categories to falsifying history, and injuring historiography euphemyzing such like 1) no mentioning, with no single word about Serbian occupations, e.g. of Croatian territories, etc., 2) manipulating geographical names e.g. 1456 "Belgrade" not existed (but "Nándorfehérvár" of Hungarian Kingdom, meaning ca. Nandor=Bulgar+WhiteCastle) at this time and much longer, etc., 3) keeping still about real historical events and persons e.g. - to stay with 1456 - this victory against Turks was accomplished by János (John) Hunyadi, no Serbian dux bellorum but from Transylvanian Hunyad (Hunedoara, today Romania), father of later King Matthias of Hungary, or other example, not true that later territories "united" with Serbia instead of right being occupied by it, etc. 4) It also seems like Serbia had stopped turkic invasion to Europe alone, what is of course also not true, and a lot more... Please correct these fatal errors/lies according to real history of the country. - (pperszon, Eu) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.225.92 (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Southern province
Serbia's self-proclaimed 'southern province'  means absolutely nothing. On an encyclopaedia we spell the facts, we don't use quotations; either something is or it isn't. I cannot ascertain whether the remark is drafted to mean: southern province in quotes because some feel it might actually be the northern province; or does it mean self-proclaimed because the region was already contested prior to its declaration of independence (in which case, from whom exactly did it declare independence?). Once the editor establishes what he meant and provides sources for his claim, we can work on tidying the section to produce the full facts. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. Not only is the use of scare quotes tendentious and unencyclopedic, but the calling Kosovo a "self-professed southern province" makes no sense wthasover.  As far I can tell, Kosovo professed itself to be an independent country, certainly not a southern province.  Thanks for fixing that. Athenean (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please be orderly and discuss changes here before removing edits. If you cannot 'ascertain whether the remark' means this or that then please ask me here. You made three changes but only refer here to one, proving that you were either unaware of the changes made (not the first time, such as here, where you edit warred without knowing the restrictions on the article, or you just made a blanket edit because you disagree with whatever an editor says.

1) It was written southern province in ' ' marks because thheir is a dispute between Serbia which considers Kosovo its Southern Province, whereas the authorities in Pristina consider it a separate state.

2) Kosovo was 'administered' by the UN not 'governed' since the KLA representatives were the first to take over municipalities post-conflcit etc, but that's for a different article.

3) The bit in the lead about the whole of 'modern-day' Serbia was incorporated into the Ottoman Empire is more accurate than saying merely 'Serbia' because the borders back then were much smaller and extended in different directions when compared to the modern Republic.

Ottomanist (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * All right. Point 2 is fine, the U.N. stood at the top but as you rightly say, Kosovo has been governed from within. Priština controls the larger part, North Kosovska Mitrovica the three municipalities of the north. Point 1 - this dispute is the case today, it was not so prior to the declaration of independence. Therefore it is fine to leave out the quotes in that particular context. If discussing Kosovo post-February 2008, you can just refer to Kosovo per se, no "province", no "country", these can be left out. Point 3 - yes Serbia's borders have chopped and changed but the Ottomans evntually conquered the Serbian Empire. The fact that modern-day Serbia fell to the Ottomans is a separate issue and can be addressed by extending the section to state Serbia then including all of Serbia now. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Also, removed bit about 're-establishing' - better to say it was 'established' since the ancient Serbian kingdom and modern Serbia are two different things, not the same territory etc., - Ottomanist (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 July 2012
Please update religion per Religion in Serbia and Religion in Vojvodina. The actual informations are OK, but I mostly think of updating the bar boxes ('colour columns') with new informations added and also making Religion in Vojvodina one of main articles of 'Religion' section. So, change to and

to

With regards, 178.223.198.96 (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Changes are minor. A request template is not needed. You may ask at help desk for minor changes such as this.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Mistake
How can you calculate correct the density, if area includes Kosovo, and the population does not?--Strower (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 November 2012
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia

109.73.111.29 (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

new/old threat to Serbian security?
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/vampire-loose-serbia-17854740#.ULoQLo7ffe4



Actually, should go to the Wiki articles on vampires and folklore. But carry some holy water anyway.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

?
Area field includes Kosovo, but population field does not. Why?--Strower (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Serbian sources probably do not have reliable figures for Kosovo's population as it has not been under their control for over a decade. Using Serbian sources for the population of Vojvodina and the rest of Serbia and adding Kosovan figures for the population of Kosovo would constitute original research on our part. --Khajidha (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

conflict between source and article -
"Despite this, the Serbian army remains the largest in the region and is in the top end of European militaries.[116]" The source does not say this. I will remove shortly unless a Reliable Source to support this statement is substituted. Btw, "top end" without any context is poor writing. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point; I have removed it. (Although if anyone gets good sources, I'm sure Serbian Armed Forces could benefit from broader coverage &c. bobrayner (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 April 2013
Under the section "Balkan wars, World War I and the creation of Yugoslavia," The 4th paragraph begins "King Peter was succeed by his son." It should read "King Peter was succeeded by his son."

Westhop (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅, thanks for catching that. King Jakob  C2 11:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

What is the point, really?
What is the point of Kosovo being light-green? Kosovo is de facto an independant state.Usrer:Zoupan User:Iadrian yu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokonja (talk • contribs) 18:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Even if Kosovo were recognized by every other country on Earth but Serbia, the map would still have to reflect that. Buttons (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Serbia in Europe Website
Hi. A link to the government's recently launched Serbia in Europe website should be added to the article information box. You can read more here: www.serbiaineurope.com In the interest of transparency I am declaring that the Serbian Government is my client. Please contact me on my Talk Page if you have any questions. Thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Bordering country orientation in the first paragraph (May 29,2013)
The sentence "The country is landlocked and borders Hungary to the north..." has all the directions backwards. Hungary is to the north of Serbia, but Serbia borders Hungary to the South. Or have I forgotten standard English usage?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boazhsan (talk • contribs) 07:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are standing in the center of Serbia the border to the north is with Hungary. This is what the paragraph means and what I had always interpreted it to say. --Khajidha (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the unsigned comment, serbia does not border hungary to the north, instead hungary is serbia's northern border. if something "borders" hungary to the north, that is referencing the northern border of hungary. its a simple fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.203.128.25 (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 August 2013
In the chapter 'religion in Serbia', in the graphic, it is indicated that the percent of undeclared people in Serbia is 2.0. That should be changed to 3.1, according to the latest census (2011). That can be checked at http://media.popis2011.stat.rs/2013/publikacije/Saopstenje%20Knjiga%204+bkorekt.pdf

Baracigor (talk) 07:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: That seems to be the same pdf which is currently referenced. It uses the cyrillic alphabet and I don't know the language, but there is no 3.1 (or 3,1) in it. Also, I am reluctant to change one value in a chart without adjusting all of them. Could you explain how you find the number to be 3.1 and what the other values in the chart should be? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

the source in english is here: http://popis2011.stat.rs/?page_id=1390&lang=en but you have to send the request, and you can download it. at the page 47, you can check the percents. If the table is organize like it is currently, total number of ateists, agnostics and undeclared is 4010+80053+220735=304798 (that's on page 39). total percent of undeclared/irreligious is 1.11+0.06+3.07=4.24%. and percent of unknown (mainly jedi's and new age religions, or just jokes) is 1.39%. in cirilic source you can divide 220735 with total number of population and that is 0.0307, which makes 3.07%. if you add ateists and agnostic it makes 4.24% again. With unknown, its 5.63%. If you are reluctant to change one value in a chart without adjusting all of them, than adjust it to the percents at pages 46, 47 in the given source. all the best!

Baracigor (talk)

Edit request; Nov. 20, 2013
The sentence "Serbia has an unfavorable trade balance, with imports exceeding the imports by a third." seems to repeat 'imports' twice. The first imports should probably be changed to exports. Zanthr (talk)


 * Yes check.svg Done: actually, it's the other way round (the source says that the imports exceed the exports). I've fixed it. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Problem of vandalising content by changing the map of Statistical regions of Serbia (removing Kosovo and Metohija)
There have been changes on the map of Serbia showing statistical regions of Serbia. Kindly ask to revert it to the old image! Klačko (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for spotting this. Actually, I removed the image altogether, and rephrased the whole section, using material from Administrative divisions of Serbia. Somebody is pushing, now already alarming, meme about Statistical regions of Serbia being relevant for anything. Serbia is not "divided" into regions, they have no administrative power, they even don't have any administrative bodies, they are just arbitrary groupings used for statistical purposes. As such, they don't even deserve a mention on the country's main page, let alone so extensive (and factually wrong) coverage. No such user (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

FIAT car plant in Kragujevac
@ Buttons: I find your constant re-editing of that caption below Fiat 500L image unnecessary. Word "manufactured" is commonly used for describing production process in car plants throughout the world, its not peculiarity of FIAT plant in Kragujevac. None of the contemporary car plants doesn't have a full production cycle, not a VW plant in Wolfsburg, Germany, GM plant in Arlington,TX, FIAT historic facility at Mirafiori, so does not Kragujevac plant either. Nevertheless, for all those factories, phrase "cars are manufactured" is commonly used. In today's auto-industry a typical plant is supported by dozens of car-parts suppliers (ussually formed in clusters), so is the case with Kragujevac plant as well. Regards, Klačko (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are really nitpicking here. As I said before, assembly is the correct term used in the English language in this case. That is why Template:Infobox automobile uses assembly over manufacturing. Buttons (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

UNMIK Kosovo Declaration of Independence
Note that the declaration has not been adopted by UNMIK Kosovo, but by individuals acting outside of its legal framework. This has been stated in the decision of the ICJ and also on respective wiki page 2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.164.58.79 (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2013
i wanna edit serbia

217.73.129.61 (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want this article to be unprotected, please request unprotection at WP:RFPP. The edit semi-protected template should only be used if there's a particular change to the content of the article you want to be made. SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2014
178.175.102.138 (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Republic \of Kosovo :D


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"(excluding Kosovo)"
My suggestion is in listing the area and population etc, that figures including and excluding Kosovo be listed. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How do you mean, can you give some example? -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  20:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Data on Telecommunications section; October 1st, 2013
New data by the Serbian Statistics Office has been just released regarding the use of ICT in Serbia:

http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/WebSite/repository/documents/00/01/14/03/PressICT2013.pdf

Therefore, 59.9% of Serbian households have a computer; 55.8% of all Serbian households have internet connection; and 43.4% have a broadband internet connection.

Also, new data regarding cable tv usage has been released by the Serbian Agency for Electronic communications.

http://www.kamatica.com/vesti/sve-vise-korisnika-kablovske-televizije-cak-144-miliona/12243

At the end of 2012, some 1,442,000 Serbian households had cable tv service, which puts the percentage of households with cable tv among the total number of households in Serbia (according to the 2011 census, there are 2,487,886 households in Serbia) at 58%.

To those responsible for maintaining and improving the quality of Serbia article: please modify the section in accordance with these fresh data! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klačko (talk • contribs) 22:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The New Map
Why is there a new map at the top of the page which shows the European Union as one giant country? The map should show all the nations of Europe, thereby showing all of Serbia's neighbours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.136.172 (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead section
Lead section, apart from summarizing the article contents, should provide the reader with an idea where the country stands in global rankings and trends. What you keep on returning is the following: Further, you changed key dates, In summary: I don't think your edits are helpful. No such user (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please explain your edits in edit summaries, and in the talk page.
 * the highest GPI in the Western Balkans,[14][15] -- is not even irrelevant, but also wrong. First, what is "Western Balkans"? The title of the source is "52nd in the world by GPI" The Serbia's GPI rank is #52, and it lags behind Slovenia (#14), Croatia (#26), Hungary (#21), Bulgaria (#32), Romania (#35), and only slightly tops Montenegro (#55), Bosnia (#61) and Albania (#65). It's quite unremarkable achievement, and GPI is not generally the most significant index to be excited about. What about HDI or GINI, much more often quoted?
 * and among 10 leading European countries by participation in UN civil missions.[16] -- why is that relevant for the lead? UN missions are hardly an important indicator of country's significance.
 * Among the region's highest-scored "free countries"[17] -- weasel words: we need to show, not tell how is Serbia a particularly free country. The article should outline where Serbia stands in the World and/or Europe (where it is, unfortunately, near the bottom at most rankings), not to act as a boosting ground in comparison with neighbors.
 * 768 is hardly an accepted year for first Serbian state, and chronicles about Višeslav of Serbia and his status as a Prince are very vague. Even the Samardžić dates him at around 780
 * Linking "1530" with Vojvodina is also misleading. Vojvodina has never been the core of Serbian state, and was just a marginal province until ~18th century, so why mentioning it in the infobox at all? History of Vojvodina does not mention 1530 as a key event in Ottoman conquest at all
 * You completely omitted all facts about Yugoslavia, which was the most important stage during most of the 20th century.

Music
That part should be rewritten or at least, some changes should be made. So many rock groups mentioned and each of them is on the edge of existence, while the ultimate music star Ceca among many others is not being mentioned. It is so wrong, gives totally wrong image. --178.221.61.136 (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, propose some solution, will you? -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  16:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That is because Ceca is a theif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.6.50 (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2015
"The FRY remained outside the conflicts, but provided logistic, military and financial support to Serb forces in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina." This sentence contradicts itself, and I find it illogical. It should be corrected to "formally remained outside the conflicts, but has provided..."

31.147.131.56 (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that is much clearer - how about "The FRY was not directly involved in the conflicts, but provided ...."? - Arjayay (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "not directly involved"? Logistic, military and financial support sounds very direct to me. It was not official to avoid being charged with aggresion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmina32 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, criticism is easy, what do you suggest? - Arjayay (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sticking with my original suggestion. I fail to see anything "unclear" about it. Claiming that they are not involved in something, but their actions prove otherwise would be the perfect explanation of that sentence written in the current article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmina32 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S. Sorry, I wasn't logged on the first time, my suggestion is "The FRY formally remained outside the conflicts, but has provided logistic, military and financial support to Serb forces in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmina32 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. —   20:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2015
79.126.234.94 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC) SERBIA ESHTE SHQIPERI
 * Translation: Serbia is Albanian. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Contradicting sentence
"The FRY remained outside the conflicts, but provided logistic, military and financial support to Serb forces in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina." This sentence contradicts itself, and I find it illogical. It should be corrected to "The FRY formally remained outside the conflicts, but has provided    logistic, military and financial support to Serb forces in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmina32 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is contradictory indeed. Maybe a more neutral solution would be "The FRY did not take part in the conflicts directly, but provided...". Vanjagenije (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Albania borders Serbia
What exactly is wrong in the statement that Serbia "claims a border with Albania through the disputed territory of Kosovo"? Why you keep removing this sentence from the article? What part of the sentence is problematic? Do you have any source to prove that Serbia does not claim a border with Albania? I see that you left me a message on my talk page informing me about the ArbCom discretionary sanctions, but you just broke the ArbCom decision by reverting the same edit two times ( and ), although Kosovo related articles are under the strict one revert rule. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've observed this as well and complained on the user talkpage, so I'm mentioning it here too for the record. - Anonimski (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with saying "Serbia claims" because that is all it does, but that really is something now well oversubscribed and available in so many disclaimers around the site, you can't say Kosovo is independent anywhere without fear of reverting by Serbian sympathizers. Question here is what does Serbia border? The answer is Kosovo, it does not border Albania. No Albanian traveling into Kosovo needs to show documents to a Serbian border controller. No Serbian national can cross into Albania unless he avoids Kosovo or Montenegro. What is so wrong with saying Kosovo borders Serbia when all the reliable sources claim this very feat. --Let&#39;s keep it neutral (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There are two answers that both have notable levels of recognition in the world, and Wikipedia should be NPOV and describe them both. Compare it with the equivalent descriptions around PRC/ROC (China/Taiwan) issues, where the balance is even further away from 50%. - Anonimski (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to describe both at some point in the article, but giving them both equal prominence or weight would be problematic; because one is fact - I mean, actually true, it exists on the ground - and the other is fantasy. bobrayner (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't have a clear-cut case such as Taiwan due to the recent separation and remaining issues in the northern part of Kosovo. Being clear about both the country's definition of itself and the actual situation "on the ground" is the most informative approach, it creates less opportunity for confusion. - Anonimski (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree here with Bobrayner fully. The belief that Kosovo is somehow a part of Serbia is a full fantasy, and besides, Serbia now essentially recognizes Kosovo after the Brussels Agreement 2013. The "claim" that Kosovo is part of Serbia exists largely in Serbia & Russia and is largely confined to slogans and gaffiti etc so as not to shake the foundations for Serbian nationalists (ie. keep everybody happy). Any talks of the claim are a bit like saying that Father Christmas exists because small children claim he does. Welcome to 2015. Get over it. Let&#39;s keep it neutral (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2015
Gjilani is part of the newly created country in Feb 17, 2008 which is Kosova and Gjilan is one of Kosovas citys.Gjilan is not part of Serbia it always was part of Kosova.

162.157.184.111 (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌: Not clear what the request is. The request should be in the form "change x to y". What exactly do you think should be changed?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Major or minor
In the "Balkan Wars, WWI..." section, is the following, " Serbia, with its campaign, was a major Balkan Entente Power[52] which contributed significantly to the Allied victory in the Balkans in November 1918, especially by helping France force Bulgaria's capitulation.[53] Serbia was classified as a minor Entente power.". Is there a point being made here that needs clarifying, or have two people edited separately with the result that there is a clash of information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peridon (talk • contribs) 17:25, 2 March 2015‎
 * This used to say "The country was militarily classified as a minor Entente power." . I went back to August of 2011 trying to find when the lines were added but gave up. Upon reading Allies of World War I, it's clear that Serbia was a secondary power; however, they were the most powerful in the Balkan region at the start of the war, winning their first 2 battles. Soon after, they had crushing defeats from Austria-Hungary. They were the major threat against Bulgaria as referenced in the letter (reference 52). So what to do?. I think we should rephrase the section as follows: Although considered a minor Entente power (ref 54), Serbia contributed significantly to the Allied victory in the Balkans, especially by helping France force Bulgaria's capitulation (ref 53). Bulgaria considered Serbia their "greatest foe" (ref 52). Stevetauber (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2015
Coordinates given for Belgrade are being parsed as coordinates for country. Page should also have coordinates for Serbia itself using Template:Coord.

216.196.204.110 (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The description of those parameters listed at are:.
 * So it seems they are right. Stickee (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Why does the Belgrade wmflabs coordinates link, list the coordinates as 'Type: Country'? Are countries usually listed by their capital's coordinates rather than that of the country? 216.196.204.110 (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the  of the capital coordinates. Alakzi (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Bypassed history facts.
Slavic tribes appeared in Europe only in the medieval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.54.5.173 (talk) 01:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2015
Serbia is 78 on Human development index, according to wiki page about Human development index.

Ranko Krvavi (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌. Serbia shares 77th position with Jordan, see .  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 16 one external links on Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100207002754/http://www.royalfamily.org:80/ustanak/USTANAK_ENG.htm to http://www.royalfamily.org/ustanak/USTANAK_ENG.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121026061741/http://www.royalfamily.org/ustanak/USTANAK_ENG.htm to http://www.royalfamily.org/ustanak/USTANAK_ENG.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120304163618/http://www.cdsee.org/pdf/WorkBook3_sr.pdf to http://www.cdsee.org/pdf/WorkBook3_sr.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121217101508/http://www.pogledi.rs:80/kragujevac/english/1e.php to http://www.pogledi.rs/kragujevac/english/1e.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090916030858/http://www.ushmm.org:80/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005449 to http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005449
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130506084426/http://www.mfa.gov.rs:80/en/foreign-policy/eu/republic-of-serbia-eu to http://www.mfa.gov.rs/en/foreign-policy/eu/republic-of-serbia-eu
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110511041636/http://www.hidmet.gov.rs/podaci/meteorologija/Temperaturni_rezim_u_Srbiji_eng.pdf to http://www.hidmet.gov.rs/podaci/meteorologija/Temperaturni_rezim_u_Srbiji_eng.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131023014630/http://www.mfa.gov.rs/diplomatic_list_1012.pdf to http://www.mfa.gov.rs/diplomatic_list_1012.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120505093604/http://www.mfa.gov.rs/Worldframe.htm to http://www.mfa.gov.rs/Worldframe.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120220121901/http://www.mfa.gov.rs/Embassies/missions_e.html to http://www.mfa.gov.rs/Embassies/missions_e.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120417141835/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/EU-grants-Serbia-candidate-status/articleshow/12108156.cms to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/EU-grants-Serbia-candidate-status/articleshow/12108156.cms
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130120221448/http://www.srbija.gov.rs/pages/article.php?id=93 to http://www.srbija.gov.rs/pages/article.php?id=93
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130309174844/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2179rank.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2179rank.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111217053433/http://www.putevi-srbije.rs:80/sr/putna-mrea-republike-srbije to http://www.putevi-srbije.rs/sr/putna-mrea-republike-srbije
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091106001304/http://www.siepa.gov.rs:80/site/en/home/1/investing_in_serbia/modern_infrastructure/transport/ to http://www.siepa.gov.rs/site/en/home/1/investing_in_serbia/modern_infrastructure/transport/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110511200628/http://www.balkans.com/open-news.php?uniquenumber=11643365 to http://www.balkans.com/open-news.php?uniquenumber=11643365

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I checked the archives. All except one are working. I removed that one from the article.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  09:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire - edit request.
I don't know why the article is semi-protected, the only thing I know is that I could't correct a mis-spelled "capital" in a picture's legend. I see that there is no (or maybe I missed if there were any) link to the Ottoman Empire in the history section. I believe the Ottomans desire a link at this article. So please do it for me. Thanks. You could also think on a section about Ottoman cultural heritage in Serbia (Turkish cuisine etc). Note: I am sure nobody would attack to vandalise this article if the protection is lifted. --176.239.12.235 (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * the spelling of "capitol" to "capital" . Ottoman Empire article is linked once in the lead section, and once in the History section. This is a broad concept article. Not every single thing connected to Serbia should be discussed in this article. Turkish cultural influences should be discussed in the Serbian culture, Serbian cuisine and similar articles.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  12:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Music of Serbia
I don't know who's been messing up the article, again and again and again (always same problem section) but Music of Serbia is not good at all. It is not objectively written, it simply doesn't show the right picture. We are talking about country where rock music barely exists, and yet we have all those bands mentioned. On the other hand, folk and pop-folk music flourish and there is no single name of that kind of singers. --BoleynSRB (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess you have a proposal how to make it better?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course I do. The only thing is: I am getting really tired of it. Did that many times, yet there is always somebody editing the article, like, let's say.... A cousin of a singer retired for almost 20 years, with an rather unsuccessful career that had lasted for about 3 years. Or some so-called turbo-folk hater, yet with a Wikipedia pedigree, who will tendentiously and sistematicaly remove everything related to turbo-folk and pop-folk. -BoleynSRB (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How do you mean "Did that many times"? Your account made no edits to the Serbia page.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. Yeah, this is my new name, new account. I have been a member of Wiki community for almost 6 years. --BoleynSRB (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, you should publicly declare your other accounts on your user page (see: WP:DECLARE and WP:ALTACCN). Otherwise, you may be considered WP:sockpuppeting.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. This is so not what I talked about. Doesn't matter. --BoleynSRB (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2016
Please change this:
 * GDP_nominal_year = 2016
 * GDP_nominal = $36.56 billion
 * GDP_nominal_rank = 86th
 * GDP_nominal_per_capita = $5,267 (excluding Kosovo)0.2em
 * GDP_nominal_per_capita_rank = 88th

with this:
 * GDP_nominal_year = 2014
 * GDP_nominal = $45.52 billion
 * GDP_nominal_rank = 84th
 * GDP_nominal_per_capita = $6,152 (excluding Kosovo)0.2em
 * GDP_nominal_per_capita_rank = 90th

Goran Suak (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Can you explain why we are making this change? --allthefoxes (Talk) 19:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Changes should be made in "Formation" row, says 8th century while its 6-7th century when Serbs had formed prinicipality on Balkans. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vi%C5%A1eslav_of_Serbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unknown_Archon I would gladly do changes but is not possible for me.