Wikipedia

Talk:Serbia/Archive 8

< Talk:Serbia
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Sadko in topic Information from two sources
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That archive does not correspond to the cited page, so I'm going to revert the edit. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I fixed it by linking the working archive [1]. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Images

Latest comment: 8 years ago21 comments10 people in discussion

@Portlannd: Could you, please, stop adding images to the article? IT is already overcrowded with images, and you just keep adding more and more. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ne more and more...već koliko je potrebno a u usporedbi sa drugim državama, na čijim ima još mnogo mnogo više slika gde pod "klima" "geografija" i sl. obavezno stoji pored grafikona i jedna slika. --Portlannd (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Google translation: No more and more ... but how much is needed in comparison with other states , on whose has many more pictures where under " air " , " geography " and the like . Obligatory standing next to a chart and one image .[2]
Oh really? Let's make the comparison with other European states of the approximately same size:
That much about the comparison. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that many of his images were more representative or of better quality than the old ones, but there were way too many. Some could be incorporated into sub-articles, which allow for more detailed coverage. See Wikipedia:Main article fixation. Images do need an occasional revision, but, I don't think they should be rotated once a month. No such user (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

In the Balkans the one image represents an important political message. Earlier photos were not clear or were not appropriate. Why dangerous ? The reason for this is that Serbia had different rulers who were the conflicting parties and there were moments of an entirely different state of organization.There were moments of an entirely different state of organization.That's why I put the image of the King and the image of the President of the country communist era. In part on the recent history I put a picture of assesinated Prime Minister Djindjic who was a liberal and reformer, and its opponents who are now in power, from conservative party. As I said insert images that represent only one side creates a rift between people.

--Portlannd (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I must say - great thinking! Could you add some more pictures? Mm.srb (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposition

I propose to limit the number of images and graphs in the page to 70 (there are 96 currently). As I explained above, other articles about European nations of the similar size (similar size of both nation and article) have far less images than this one. Large number of images makes the article hard to read and also ugly. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. We should here actually have a greement about what image we use in article. Now there is too many images. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 13:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Aircorn: I completely agree with you. All those pictures should be removed because they add little if any to the article, but they make it more overcrowded. I removed File:Student protest 96.jpg because it is non-free and has no fair use rationale for this article. I believe the rest should also be deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I would recommend one image per section. In special cases, you might be able to support two images per section. MOS:IMAGES has helpful advice. Beyond that, I'm not really familiar enough with the article to make specific suggestions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Dom Narodne skupštine, Beograd 12.jpg - The contents of the image isn't mentioned in the article or described in the caption. The caption itself appears to be a quote from the article without adding to the article. It could be removed easily. Bravefoot (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I've updated the caption to represent the image contents. Stevetauber (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

As I see that nobody objected to my proposition, I reduced the number of images in the article to 70. I took the advices given above by Aircorn. There is still more than one image per section, some sections have as many as 8 images. What do other editors think about galleries in the "Environment" and "Cuisine" sections? Are they needed or is one image enough? Vanjagenije (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice work! Well done. bobrayner (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It sure was a great job, but... What should we do (this is not the first time)? Suggestions? Mm.srb (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Portlannd keeps adding images

@Portlannd: Why do you keep adding images? It was agreed above that there were too many images in the article, and that their number should be limited. No one even objected to that. If you continue acting against consensus, it can be regarded as wp:disruptive editing which may lead to you being WP:blocked. Take this as a warning. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Portlannd: You added more pictures again [8]. This is getting disruptive. Please, stop adding images without reaching consensus. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The page is looking like a picture book - a bad one that is. Mm.srb (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
What's our current situation? This version seems much better to me. One more thing, what's the deal with geography section coming before history? Mm.srb (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Mm.srb: The number pf images is stable now (more or less), but Portlannd keeps changing images several times a day without any discussion. That is a bit of a problem. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please change instrumental sound of Serbian national anthem, because the version at the actual wiki page is too fast and generally speaking it is hardly recognizable. I am sanding you the official instrumental version of Serbian National Anthem that can be found on official web site of Serbian National Assembly. Please follow the link. You can contact me to further discuss this issue.

http://www.parlament.gov.rs/upload/images/content/amblems/Boze_pravde_instrumental.mp3

Rale126--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rale126 (talk • contribs) 8:38, 3 April 2016‎ (UTC)

  •   Not done. The version you provided is copyrighted, and so not compatible with Wikipeia's WP:copyright policy. We need a version that is either in WP:public domain or which is published under free licence. The current version is in public domain because it was performed by the US soldiers on duty, and so it is in the public domain according to US laws. The version you provided is under copyrights of the orchestra that played it. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

changes need to be made...

Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goxy63 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

  • @Goxy63: Višeslav lived in the 8th century, so I don't know what are you trying to prove by mentioning him. Unknown Archon lived in 7th century, but had no principality as I know. If you still think that is wrong, you should provide some WP:reliable sources to prove otherwise. be aware that other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, per WP:Circular. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Vanjagenije: Even if "Unknown Archon" why it should not be mentioned as there is enough proof?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unknown_Archon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dervan

    • @Goxy63: First of all, Unknown Archon lived in 7th century, not 6-7th century as you said. Second, "formation" field is about the formation of the Serbian state. If you think the state was originally formed by the Unknown Archon, you have to provide some reliable sources to prove so. And, as I said, other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources per WP:CIRCULAR. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Intricate detail, such as early monarchs, should be left out of this article. There are plenty of articles dealing with early history of the Serbs/Serbia. These are linked in the history section.--Zoupan 21:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It is well known and there is enough evidence that Serbs had developed society on Balkans before 8th century ? I think it does not matter that archon is unknown when Vlastimirovic dynasty is, mentioned by Byzantines and in many other researches....

  • @Goxy63: First of all, please sign your posts (see: WP:SIGNATURE). What is "well known" is not important. Wikipedia may only write what is already written in reliable sources, and not what is "well known" (see: WP:V). So, for the change you propose, you have to show reliable sources that say Serbs definitely had their own state before 8th century. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Vanjagenije: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlastimirovi%C4%87_dynasty check refferences, it is mentioned that this dynasty was there before 8th century. In a way you speak QUOTE "you have to show reliable sources that say Serbs definitely had their own state before 8th century" END OF QUOTE reliable sources are on page about "Vlastimirovic Dynasty" ....in short what you say means almost every page or every page on wikipedia is questionable? Or just when I say "Serbs had ruler and principality before 8th century"? Please do tell me what is wrong with those sources on page from mentioned link?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Goxy63 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Goxy63: Please, show specific source that says Serbia was a state before 8th century. As I already said, other Wikipedia pages are not reliable sources. You have to cite specific source. If it is a book, please cite the name of the book and the exact page. If it is a web source, cite the URL. And, please, sign your posts (WP:SIGN). Vanjagenije (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Vanjagenije:
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlastimirovi%C4%87_dynasty
  2. References
  3. Start from refference No.1 http://www.rastko.rs/arheologija/delo/13047 http://www.rastko.rs/rastko-bl/istorija/corovic/istorija/index.html .....and also few more
    • @Goxy63:The reference No.2 that you mentioned (Ćorović) says that the first Serbian state was created in the first half of IX century (see here). In the reference No.1 (Janković) I don't see any mention of Serbian state in the 6th century. Can you cite the exact sentence? And, once again, please SIGN your posts. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
There may be some confusion here with their arrival and presence during those earlier centuries. I have certainly never encountered any state or principality of any kind dating back that far. --OJ (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Vanjagenije: why we are speaking about type of state organization, this is not an issue here, it could be even a tribe for this matter. on this page There is also more evidence in some other researches from various historians who researched Byzantine empire and they all have mentioned Serbian prince or king on Balkans during 7th century... Not sure why you insist on some signature here, nor I know what that means, nor I have time to study how to do it as anyways I can not change anything when it comes of Serbian arrival on Balkans...that is why I started this discussion here. Seems to me that you are more interested in my signature than to read from given links...if you are interested at all or you decided that you will not accept that there is enough details and proof to say that Serbs are here before 8th century. Let me ask you one thing, can you change at all "formation" field? If not I don't see why should I have this discussion with you at all ?
    • @Goxy63: Signatures are important so that we know who we are talking with. The answer to your second question is: yes, I can change the "formation" parameter. The article is semi-protected which means that only editors whose account is autoconfirmed may edit it. I am an administrator, so of course I can edit it. I am not sure, but it seams to me that your account is also autoconfirmed, which means that you are also able to change it yourself. But, you should not change it unless you reach WP:CONSENSUS with other interested editors. The answer to your first question is: we are talking about the state because this is article about the state (Serbia). The "formation" field is for the date the state was formed. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Vanjagenije: if I could I would already do that as I am sure that there is enough prof that Serbians had "state" before 8th century, there is more than enough proof even here on Wikipedia. There is way more in published scientific books which I cant use here properly as those evidence is not just about Serbia or Serbs but it is mentioned mainly in research about Byzantine empire....even in some old Arabic written documents. Just those links I gave you are enough to prove what I say. It does not matter if archon is unknown "state" was there, people were living there and they were called Serbs by Byzantines....After these few proof I gave you on what grounds you claim that Serbs were not there before 8th century, who was there if not them during 7th century, links? I was really not having intention to make so big (if its big anyways) discussion out of this but here we are.
ps
Wikipedia is new to me, pretty much new, its pretty much confusing and there is no proper sources I would agree with you on that as most of pages have rough explanation about some history facts.

Also there is political background in many of articles and mainly they are (if in English) protecting so called "western" versions of history which are not always true... I would take care about my signature but simply now I don't have so much time to study that...

  • @Goxy63: As I already said, you failed to show us a reliable source that clearly says Serbian state existed before 8th century. That is how Wikipedia works, everything has to be based on reliable published sources. Until you provide such source, there is nothing to discuss. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Edis request

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Caption on image on left side under Politics, fix "Serbian government headquarter, Belgrade." to "Serbian government headquarters, Belgrade." Grammar issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.151.82 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  Done Cannolis (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Kosovo

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Why is Kosovo excluded as a language in Serbia??? There are several % Kosovo-Albanian speaking in Republic of serbia:S Makolli86 (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not excluded? See Serbia#Language.--Zoupan 05:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Kosovar in Serbia are excluded as an ethnic group, which is wrong. This should be corrected. Makolli86 (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Under ethnic groups it's written: "9% others (excluding Kosovo)". Kosovo is an independent country so of course it should be excluded. You mean here instead excluding Kosovars, right!? From the 4 references above many Kosovars lives in nowadays Republic of Serbia.

The important question here is how many Kosovars are living in the Republic of Serbia, and instead of just writing 9 % others, specify this 9 % others?Makolli86 (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Why do you exclude Kosovo-Albanians as ethnic groups in this article,

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Excluding Kosovo under ethnic group is a wrong information. In south Serbia - Presevo, Bujanovac and Medvedja (earlier part of Greater Albania), which still is home for thousands and thousands Kosovo-Albanians and considered their homeland. Look at these references as for example:

1)http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/south-serbia-albanians-request-community-of-municipalities; 2)http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/south-serbia-albanians-request-exhange-of-territories-to-be-on-agenda; 3)https://euobserver.com/foreign/130248.Makolli86 (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

  • @Makolli86: "Kosovo" is not at ethnic group. Albanians as an ethnic group are mentioned in the article five times, once in the lead, and Albanian language is mentioned three times. What exactly is "excluded"? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Under ethnic groups it's written: "9% others (excluding Kosovo)."? This is my point, and according the articles above this is not quite true, is it? Makolli86 (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please do not remove the message from the article until conditions to do so are meet. More documentation is needed for this statement: "9% others (excluding Kosovo)." Makolli86 (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
What exactly is disputed? Kosovo is excluded form the population data because Serbian population censuses of 2002 and 2011 were not conducted on the territory of Kosovo. There is no census data for Kosovo, and so it is excluded. What do you propose should be done? Vanjagenije (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I propose that Kosovo is included in those "9 % others" since this is confirmed that a huge population of Kosovar exist in southerne Serbia. Please the three articles above. With respect Makolli86 (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
You do not understand what "excluding Kosovo" means. That means that the people (both Serbs and Albanians) living on the territory of Kosovo are excluded because there is no population data for Kosovo. Albanians living in the southern Central Serbia are not excluded. They are, indeed, included in the "others". Vanjagenije (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Under ethnic groups it's written: "9% others (excluding Kosovo)". Kosovo is an independent country so of course it should be excluded. You mean here instead excluding Kosovars, right!? From the 4 references above many Kosovars lives in nowadays Republic of Serbia.

The important question here is how many Kosovars are living in the Republic of Serbia, and instead of just writing 9 % others, specify this 9 % others?Makolli86 (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

  • @Makolli86: There are about 50 ethnicity living in Serbia. It is useless to list them all with numbers, that would be too long. Instead, there is a separate article titled Albanians in Serbia, and that article is linked through this article. Anyone who is interested to learn about Albanians living in Serbia can click the link and read about it. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Serbia earned a silver medal at the 2016 summer Olympics in Women's Volleyball. The team was also the first to beat USA in 60 years.

109.155.51.213 (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC) Novak djokovic is marekd as world number one he has won the {{french opening}} many times.

  •   Not done Please, be more precise. The request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Vanjagenije (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to point out that Serbia's population is actually 8,811,464 George12333 (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Serbian link

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

please change ((Serbian)) to ((Serbian language|Serbian))

Orphaned references in Serbia

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Serbia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "EJC":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

GA status

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Wondering if anyone would like to consider nominating this article for GA (perhaps some knowledge from some regular editors of the article) since I am not very familiar with the article's long history? Geo talk 19:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

One thing I did notice is the lead referring to the HDI as "relatively high", perhaps a minimal violation of WP:POV. This leads me to suspect there might be issues with NPOV elsewhere in the article (why I nominated it for a check). Geo talk 20:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2017

serbia is not kosovo

serbia is not kosovo

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

{{subst:trim| 

leader_title2 = Prime Minister

| leader_name2 = [[Ana Brnabić, (interim)

}} Elstar95 (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2017 (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. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 19:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Ana Brnabić is not yet a prime minster at all, not even interim. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Border with Albania, not anymore!

Serbia didn't share anymore a border with Albania; Kosovo is largely an independente state with 110 recognitions. Changing is needed!

Serbia a parliamentary republic?

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

To me, it seems like Serbia and other former Yugoslav nations such as Croatia and Macedonia[1] have a semi-presidential system rather than parliamentary, as their presidents' executive functions resemble more those of heads of state from countries as Lithuania, Poland and Romania than of Germany, Estonia or Latvia, as their role and powers are quite influential in the executive branch. --B.Lameira (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@B.Lameira: You need reliable sources for such description (see: WP:V). What it seams like to you is irrelevant. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije: that is the reason why I have created this topic, rather than making an unilateral edit. I also accept suggestions of sources, in order to change that. B.Lameira (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Precision

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Perunslava: Please, do not try to remove [9][10] important fact from the lead without consensus, the fact that Serbia claims Kosovo as a part of itself. Your claim that the lead needs "simplicity" is correct, but simplicity does not mean to remove important information. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Perunslava: You keep changing the lead without consensus. Please discuss the changes that you want to make before editing the article. BytEfLUSh | Talk 21:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Remarks Мандић Матеја (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2018 (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. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Мандић Матеја (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2018 (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.  Ivecos (t) 12:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The sentence at the end of the first paragraph appears twice in a row. Delete one of them. Texasgale (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done — IVORK Discuss 01:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Raspberry

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I wanted to say how Serbia is now 5th raspberry producer,and not 2nd! If this is the wrong place for such messeges, than please excuse me, hope your'e not mad your dear Mika iz Arilje!

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
62.4.55.48 (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)It is estimated by the CIA that Serbia has around 7.112.000 population https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ri.html. So it would be nice if someone could change it. Although the total number of Serbs holing a Serbian passport with residence in Serbia is 9.2m. It is estimated that around 27% of the Serbian population did not participate in the Census that was held in 2011. So the population variation is still a subject of discussion. Total number of Serbs living in the Balkans countries is estimated to be around 10.2m
According to Joshua Project, the total number of the Serbs around the world is 8,9 Mil., from whom 6,5 Mil. are living in Serbia.Jingiby (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
According to the CIA the total population of Serbia is 7,111,024 people from whom 83,3% are Serbs, i.e. ca 6,0 Mil. are Serbs. Jingiby (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  The Joshua project is NOT a WP:RS - Arjayay (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

According to Ethnologue the number of Serbian speakers in Serbia is 6,340,000. Total users in all countries are 8,6 mil. Jingiby (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Spintendo      08:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is Kosovo excluded?

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why do you cut Kosovo from Serbia and you give under population number only the number of Serbs without those Serbs living in Kosovo? Kosovo is Serbia, because Russia, China... have never recognized the USA and Albanian occupation! Serbia has never recognized the Kosovo occupation! Kosovo is still part of Serbia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.139.87 (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Population number does not show only the number of Serbs. It shows the number of all people living in Serbia (without Kosovo). Vanjagenije (talk) 08:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Music section

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed a certain lack of balance, looking at genres. There were 27 rock bands mentioned, while only 4 pop singers, 7 pop-folk singers. First of all, such a big number of names is too much for any genre as it makes it tiring to read. Second, it didn’t really help in creating a real image of Serbian music world (where pop music dominates). I hope everyone is happy with the edit I made. BoleynSRB (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I do not want to make any sort of request I just wanted to give the advice to the editors of the Serbia page, to FINALLY fix the population projection. Serbia has around 8,751,405 population WITHOUT Kosovo. We are sending the data about our population on a regular basis to the United Nations. The Census in Serbia has had so many controversies and I was the one working with the Serbian Census bureau. We were instructed to reduce the number of listed people from the top of the Govt. For what reasons we weren't told. Please fix this problem. Its about time. 95.155.32.237 (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Abusing the images & good article

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Fellow Wikipedians, this article is sort of a free space for pretty much everyone to edit the images on it the way they like. This has been happening for quite some time. Is there something that we could do? I would also like to see (with other people interested), what should we do in order to make this article elegible for good article status. Mm.srb (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Mm.srb : You can add some of my photos of cuisine, instead of drink, which is momentaly. I would put this one. Or join both of them in double pic. --PetarM (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
PetarM, done and done. Please take another lovely photo but this time with one of our wines. I recommend anything from Sremski Karlovci wine region. Mm.srb (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

the first sentence

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Something doesn’t have sense here - to me. Enlighten me if I am not right. The sentence says: Serbia is located at the crossroads of Central Europe (call it point A) and Southeastern Europe (let that be point B).

Now if Serbia actually IS situated in our point B, Southeastern Europe (otherwise I really don’t know what Southeastern Europe is, Greece?), how can it be located at the crossroads of Central Europe and its own geographical point? A crossroad is a place where one road crosses another. Slovakia for example is not located at the crossroads of Northern Europe and Central Europe because Slovakia IS Central Europe. Therefore the crossroads could be between North and South or East and West. Same about Serbia. I believe better choice of words would be: crossroads of Central and Southern Europe, or located in Southeastern Europe. You get me? BoleynSRB (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

All ex Yu countries minus Slovenia are part of SE Europe, plus Bulgaria, Romania and Albania. Greece, Italy, Cyprus and Malta (if I am not wrong) are S Europe. The very N point of Serbia in this case would be one of the several famous borders between SE and Central Europe. Other people take Belgrade to be the border city, while Vojvodina province is a part of the middle Europe. The sentence is correct. Mm.srb (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to add NBA player Nikola Jokic (Denver Nuggets) to the list of famous Serbs in sports. Irvstern (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

We have Jokić listed on List of people from Serbia. I do not think that he should be added to the article at the present moment. He is a great player but only at the beginning of his career. In four or five years we will see if he should be included as one of "the greats" like Divac or Bodiroga. If we include Jokić, some other editor could include Sergej Milinković-Savić and so on and so on. Thank you for the suggestion. Mm.srb (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The greats of Serbian and World science - Tesla, Pupin, Milanković Little Serbia has created some of the most important scientists in history and has shown that the size of the nation is not measured by numbers but by the power of the mind. Nikola Tesla was one of the most famous Serbian and world inventors and scientists in the field of physics, electrical engineering and the radio technics. Mihajlo Pupin was one of twelve people who on April 23, 1915, attended the first meeting of the National Committee for Aeronautics (then NACA, later NASA). Apart from participating in its establishment, Serb was also the first president of its subcommittee for aeronautical communications. The computer revolution in the World is unthinkable without the discovery of Mihail Pupin, "said Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft. [Milanković] gave two fundamental contributions to science. The first contribution is the "Earthen Earth Kanon" that characterizes all the planets of the Solar System. The second contribution is the theoretical explanation of Earth's long-lasting climatic changes caused by astronomical changes in its position relative to the Sun; today known as Milankovic's cycles. This explains the emergence of ice ages during the Earth's geological past, as well as climate change on Earth that can be expected in the future. NetVision (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DBigXrayᗙ 15:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Minority section

Latest comment: 4 years ago24 comments6 people in discussion

Pinging @Resnjari: and @Klačko:. I am not much interested in discussing whether the content should stay or not, but you seem to be. I rv to the pre-dispute version though. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The reason outlined for its removal [11], i.e to paraphrase @Klačko is that the languages are outlined within the article or that neighbouring countries don't have that info in their infoboxes. To the contrary, at least 4 of Serbia's neighbours (Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Romania, Kosovo) who have recognised minority languages by law in their countries have them listed in the infoboxes. I don't see why that should not apply here. At the moment this appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. @Klačko, unless you got something specific from Wiki guidelines or policy to back your position, going forward with this matter is a time wasting exercise.Resnjari (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I see only three Serbia's neighbours there (and so does the UN and ~half of the world, it is a fact). Furthermore, those 3 countries have a high minority population (Macedonia and Montenegro!). There is no Wiki rule which directly states that we need to or must have it. A number of country pages do not have it and it is a matter for discussion. Sadko (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Whether or not some see Kosovo as a country is a trivial issue, in the end 4 countries have it as the page for Kosovo treats it as a country. Sure some articles for countries have it and some don't. However there is nothing also precluding the addition of that content in the infobox. Its an important piece of information. Serbia does recognise by law a whole host of minority languages in addition to the statewide official language.Resnjari (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I do not understand your first sentence. It is treated as a territory/ disputed area /partially recognised country, that is all. Since you two raised this issue on the TP, we would need a wider consensus for the inclusion in the infobox. I do not see it happening any time soon.That admin clearly said that there is no rule for this. Plus, it is not as if there is no info whatsoever on minority languages. There is enough data in a paragraph or two. And those min. rights are not just in theory, like in some countries, but in RL as well (I know that for a fact because I live in a multicultural area). As for my comments on Klačko's TP - I stick with them and can see through the modus operandi. Sadko (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia treats Kosovo as a country. Neither is there is no rule for having that data in the infobox, however there is no rule against it. There is data on minority languages in the article, as too on the Serbian language. And the status of the Serbian language is cited in the infobox, why should minority languages be excluded from the infobox? A reader may not read the whole article and the infobox allows them to discern important information in a simple manner. As for your last comment As for my comment on Klačko's TP - I stick with them and can see through the modus operandi. can you elaborate on exactly what you mean, so there is no misunderstandings?Resnjari (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that essential question we need to answer here is whether or not there is existential/urgent need to put separate section on recognized minority languages in infobox even though they are thoroughly mentioned in Languages section. Main argument putted forward by @Resnjari is basically why should minority languages be excluded from infobox when Serbian language is cited there!? Firstly, we just can't put everything someone wants in the infobox, it would make no sense since infobox cites only the most basic info in the shortest of forms - other, more elaborate info is cited in the article and that is the purpose of article. Secondly, as infobox cites only the most basic of info, it makes sense to put the most basic info on the language, too: the mention of the language which is official in the whole of country's territory (in difference to the minority languages which are official in the individual municipalities) and which is spoken by the 88% of the population (in difference to the minority languages which are spoken by total of less than 10% of the population) can be by any gauge and standard considered the basic info and therefore has its place in the infobox. Well, lets wait for a while and see if proponent (@Resnjari basically) of minority languages in the infobox attain consensus/or majority of the opinion here, if not we will stick with previous solution (official language only in the infobox) which was in this article for years and years. Regards, Klačko (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
What wiki guidelines or policy are you basing this on? Of course Serbian is the official language throughout the land. However, minority languages exist as recognised by the law of that land. The infobox there is to show a reader the most basic info and having those languages listed is basic info. The article can explain further where their distribution is etc. I fail to see why percentage is important (say's who) in determining what should or should not be in there. Its not used for other articles in determining those things where languages are cited that are much, much smaller. Serbia is a multilingual state and its laws enshrine this in areas where non-Serbian minorities live. Its relevant for a reader to know as i outlined in previous comments.Resnjari (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
By the way @Klačko:, can you elaborate by this recent comment [12]: Хвала Садко на запажању. Слажем се да сам навучен, очигледно је да су ова два алб. корисника координисано деловали, један је отпочео са изменама и чим је кренуло са наизменичним брисањима укључио се други (гле чуда, Алб.) да ме из позиције као неутралца пријави администраторима (притом се служећи подвалом да сам избрисао нешто што је одавно стајало у чланку иако је истина да пре јучерашњег дана је такав садржај у инфобоксу стајао један једини дан и то почетком фебруара - опет, гле чуда, едитован од истог овог корисника). Још једном хвала ти на солидарности и учешћу у расправи на talk page-у поводом овога. Свако добро, translated it reads: "Thanks Sadko for the observation. I agree being drawn, obviously these two are alb. users that acted in a coordinated way, one started making changes and as soon as the deletions started, the other (see, surprise, Alb.) came in to report me as a neutral to the administrators (using the trick that I deleted something that was long ago in the article though it is true that before yesterday, such content was in infobox for a single day and at the beginning of February - again, behold, miracles, edited by the same user). Thank you again for your solidarity and participation in the talk page discussion on this. All the best". I'm interested to know what you mean here "корисника координисано деловали" (in a coordinated way) so we have no future misunderstandings.Resnjari (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
It was personal conversation between me and @Sadko on his TP where we shared some observations about what happened and its none of your bussines really. Sharing that on this page is rather bizzare and rude. Klačko (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually it is, because one of those editors who was involved in the matter was myself and you claim that there was 'coordination'. That is basically casting WP:ASPERSIONS of my and another editor's character and veer into WP:PERSONALATTACK territory. Multiple people have this article on their watchlist and other editors may not like them editing it, but Wikipedia allows anyone to edit as long as they are productive and not disruptive. The purpose of the talkpage is to focus on content disputes.Resnjari (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Let me first say that edit warring is not the best way to start a discussion in Wikipedia. Then using this talk page discussion to discuss the status of Kosovo, or for that matter to discuss editor behaviour, is not the best way to continue. Can we please focus on the disputed question itself? For the record, most of this was written before the last two entries.

Regarding what is the current consensus: Klačko stated in an edit summary that the disputed text was introduced on February 1st and lasted for just one day, Resnjari has stated that this was there for a long while, and Ktrimi991 says that it was there till you removed it a few weeks ago. None of these statements are very accurate. The facts are as follows: It is true that it was introduced 1 February by Resnjari and removed the day after by Klačko, but then it was put back by Resnjari, removed by Klačko and then reinserted by Fossa, whereafter it remained in the article from 4 February till 9 July, when it again was removed by Klačko. Thus it has been in for five months and out for two months since February, which is hardly a clear-cut consensus either way. I suggest we do not use any "It has been there" / "It has not been there" arguments.

Regarding other languages: The short version is that some countries have such information, other have not. Hard to say what is most common, but either way, I suggest we do not use "Country X has" / "Country Y has not" arguments.

I want to hear arguments both ways before I give my opinion, but I hope someone with knowledge about it can can start with giving a short summary of the official status of other languages in Serbia, so that we all know what we actually are discussing. Thanks! --T*U (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

In 2005 Serbia and Montenegro signed on to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. After that union broke up, Serbia continued to adhere to these obligations as a successor state. TU-nor, you can find details about linguistic status here (Languages of Serbia) in this report by the Council of Europe [13]. It says on pages: 4-5 Pursuant to national legislation, the introduction of a minority language in official use is compulsory if a national minority accounts for 15% of the population of an (entire) municipality (opština).}} Then it gives more details in the long report. If your interested have a read. Anyway to cut it short, Serbia recognises minority languages in its national legislation and a language becomes official in a municipality if it exceeds the 15% threshold. Having those languages in the infobox is important as the country's own laws enshrine this reality.Resnjari (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
1. Serbian is the only official language in the country and is specifically stipulated by the Constitution. Article 10 of the Constitution says:"Serbian language and Cyrillic script shall be in official use in the Republic of Serbia. Official use of other languages and scripts shall be regulated by the law based on the Constitution." 2. Use of "recognized" (pay attention to this legal terminology) minority languages is stipulated by the Article 11 of the Law on protection of rights and liberties of ethnic minorities: "In the municipalities where the members of national minorities traditionally live, their language and script may be of equal official use (that is to say in addition to the use of the official language, Serbian). The municipality shall by its statute introduce the official language and alphabet of a national minority in equal use if the percentage of members of that national minority in the total population in its territory reaches 15% according to the results of the last census." 3. Out of 117 municipalities in Serbia (excluding Kosovo*) only in around 16-17 municipalities some of recognized minority languages are in the official use. 4. Minority languages spoken in total by less than 10% of the population cannot be considered most basic info needed to be in the infobox. They are thoroughly mentioned in the Languages section in the article, no need for doubling it in the infobox really. We just can't put everything someone wants in the infobox, it would make no sense since infobox cites only the most basic info in the shortest of forms - other, more elaborate info is cited in the article and that is the purpose of article. As infobox cites only the most basic of info, it makes sense to put the most basic info on the language, too: the mention of the language which is official in the whole of country's territory (in difference to the minority languages which are official in the individual municipalities) and which is spoken by the 88% of the population (in difference to the minority languages which are spoken by total of less than 10% of the population) can be by any gauge and standard considered the basic info and therefore has its place in the infobox. Klačko (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
This just confirms what i wrote before that Serbia recognises these languages in law as part of the state in municipalities where speakers exceed the 15% mark. I fail to see what this 10% number your invoking out of thin air has anything to do toward not having them in the infobox. Also as i said to @Sadko down below, Serbia interprets Kosovo as part of its territory in that same constitution. Kosovo has some 1,800,000 Albanian speakers and technically from the Serbian perspective all are its citizens and covered by its laws. From this perspective, this would make the share of minority language speakers much, much larger then the current 12% or so. Just Albanian alone would be in percentage terms the late teens to mid twenties of Serbia's population. The point is, Serbia has recognised these languages in law on the territory it still controls and they form a sizable share of its population (depending on how that is defined, plus or minus Kosovo). Its helps a reader identify information quicker if this data is in the infobox about languages.Resnjari (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I do not care about this. The said content being or not in the infobox is a small detail. I just reverted because one editor was removing without talk page discussion content that had been there for months after added by two other editors. As suggested by me and @EdJohnston:, editors interested in the content dispute can open a RfC to have more community input. Cheers all and do not take such disputes more seriously they you should. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
The wish to have them minority languages included in the infobox is not per any rule, it is merely a wish/whim of one or two editors. The reason why is obvious. We are not obliged to include them and many countries - do not (for example our neighbour and a GA article status Croatia). Solid information and hard fact are given in the article as it is. Quoting European charter for regional or minority languages is not an argument. Constitution of the Republic of Serbia stipulates that Serbian language and Cyrillic script shall be in the official use, while official use of other languages and scripts shall be regulated by law. There are 15 minority languages spoken in Serbia, should we includ them all? I do not see why, it is far better to add more info within the article. I belive you can do that. Sadko (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Exactly, there is no rule, but the option exists to exercise it for the infobox. @Sadko, you seem not to have taken into account that because Serbia signed the charter that from that it has resulted in legislation that has officially recognised minority languages in the country. Minority languages are part of the law of the land in areas where they are spoken by non-Serbian communities. Also we only list the ones recognised by legislation, that's my position. Those are the ones that are already in the infobox. We're not talking about adding languages of recent immigrant communities like Arabs, Afghans, Russians or Chinese etc which are present in Serbia in small numbers and not official in any capacity. Another thing, as Serbia's position is that Kosovo is still part of its territory, Albanians in Kosovo are at least some 1,800,000 and technically from Serbia's interpretation they are its citizens. As such, the Albanian language under this interpretation of Kosovo's status as part of Serbia would mean that the share of minority language speakers would be much greater then the 12% and also be covered by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The point is, Serbia has recognised these languages in law on the territory it still controls and they form a sizable share of its population (depending on how that is defined, plus or minus Kosovo). Its helps a reader identify information quicker if this information is in the infobox about languages.Resnjari (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
This was not "a stable version" and that is not an argument. Content of the article was changed several times. That is per editing history, you can check it. You are pushing your POV here. I did not "call you out" nor was I personal, do not cast empty accusations, I do not appreciate it, thank you. The rest about that wannabe country is irrelevant, as the census included in the very article does not include any ethnicity from the territory of Kosovo*. If you continue to push your POV, which you are in fact doing while throwing in empty phrases like "stable version" and so on for a cover, I will report you and that will be just the starters of it. Sadko (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Sadko, if you feel that i have done something wrong, then i suggest that you report me instead of continuing with WP:ASPERSIONS. Focus on the issue at hand.Resnjari (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Resnjari, TU-nor, Sadko, and Klačko: I opened a RfC in the section below. You might add your comments there but do not make the discussion messy. Do not revert each other again till the RfC is closed. @Sadko, if you accuse me of tag teaming again, I will file a report at AE. Do not give this trivial dispute way more weight than you should. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
For clarification, TU-nor has not reverted during the content dispute. I added them in the ping above to not ping editors participating in the discussion in different ping templates. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
To avoid any misunderstanding I firstly want to state my personal bias towards inclusion of minority languages into infobox due to my extensive editing primarily in relation to Serbian Cyrillic in Croatia. I believe (and it no more than my personal opinion) that it is highly important and interesting part of information for interested audience and follows the practice of increased awareness and recognition of minority languages and multilingualism in recent decades. Serbia, as a country that in Yugoslav times was European leader in formulation of minority rights mechanisms within Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe should not be shy or afraid of its positive practices. Up to the present day the country have some of the best minority language protection models in Europe (both legally and in practice, especially in Vojvodina, less so when it comes to new post-Yugoslav minorities) and I do not believe that neighboring countries should be used as the main reference point in this field. Argument about number of speakers may not be the luckiest one as the entire process of recognition and promotion of traditional minority languages is often put in place exactly because some language may be less widespread and dominant. Such an example is Pannonian Rusyn (?up to 20,000 speakers?) which in Vojvodina was recognized, developed and standardized at least since 1970's, at least 2 decades earlier than its much larger Rusyn language in Ukraine/Slovakia/Poland (in Ukraine not up until today). While argument about simplicity of the infobox may be relevant I think there may be other options how to resolve it which do not include removal of officially recognized minority languages (article on Romania may be interesting case). I believe you may have some creative ideas. Now, in addition to talking I decided to take a look at practice among pages on EU member states. Practice is not uniform yet there seems to be tendency to include this information in infobox more often than not. Countries which include it are Portugal, Malta, Cyprus, Romania, Poland, Czech Republic, Austria, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands and United Kingdom (13 out of 28). Countries with explanatory note are Croatia, Slovenia, Italy, Spain and Germany, while France have a note which explain unofficial languages (6 out of 28). Countries which do not include information on minority languages are Ireland, Belgium, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Greece, Estonia and Latvia (8 out of 28). However one should probably exclude Ireland and Belgium from the last group as they simply classify their de facto minority languages as official languages. Remaining countries hardly have language policies comparable to Serbia. Now, I know I already wrote way too much (thanks for patience!). You may also maybe find something interesting Here. Hopefully this will be useful and dialogue will be constructive.--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Outside of Europe, the wiki page on India (a featured article) has that data on officially recognised languages in the infobox. The wiki page on China, a GA article also has that data on officially recognised languages in its infobox. On countries in Asia, South America and Africa (actually most for that continent) has officially recognised languages listed in the infobox: South Sudan, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, The Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, Togo, Tanzania, Zambia, Cameroon, Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, São Tomé and Príncipe, Namibia, South Africa, Iran, Nepal, New Caledonia, Fiji, Burma, Laos, Uzbekistan, Argentina, Ecuador, Venezuela, Suriname, Guyana, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Belize. Resnjari (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Why is political system of Serbia defined as 'one-party dominant'?

First of all, there is no full domination of one party, but they do have majority in Parliament. Same as PP has in Spain, nothing weird about that. Second it is not true that Progressive Party alone has seats in Government, there are as well many Ministers from Socialist Party, Social Democratic Party and independent persons. Simply, not true. (For example, in Spanish Government all seats have Ministers from PSOE, yet Spain is not one dominant system) As well, next elections are certain and results are not, and that is totally normal in one democratic country. There is no criteria that defines Progressive Party as possible winner of elections in future.

Typo

The fourth paragraph of section 2.5 (Balkan Wars, etc.) has a typo: The first sentence starts with "erbia" (sic) instead of "Serbia". I'm logged out (I don't have a clue as to my old account PW) and the article is semi-protected so I can't see to this on my own.

Historic misconception, Historic misconception

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

@TU-nor: Those sources are simply not correct, they are just recycling old misconception claiming that Slav means a slave and Serb a servant. That thesis has long been abandoned. Your edit is only encouraging one problematic editor (on all levels). I do not know if you are from the Balkans and that is not relevant here, but this poor thesis is promoted by several biased and hateful individuals all over the web, because - they like it (and it has nothing to do with science). Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sadko: The claim is supported by three independent sources, so it seems to be reliably sourced. That does not mean that their suggested etymology is necessarily true, but it is sufficient for inclusion. Notice that it is not claimed that the name comes from such-and-such; the claim is that some scholars suggest this etymology. That seems indisputable to me, since at least Colin Wells is an acclaimed historian. In order to "get rid of" this from the article, you will have to show that the three sources are not reliable for the claim. --T*U (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Three independent sources could be found with a shared claim that Atlantis was in the Atlantic Ocean. Please tell me under which rule/s sources can be included even if they are not correct? Such Wiki rule or guideline is nonexistent. Show us that such inclusion is acceptable per Wiki rules and the content can remain in the article. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@Sadko: The rules WP:RS and WP:NPOV springs to mind. And again, the claim is that some scholars [...] suggest that ..., which is rather hard to disprove unless the sources can be shown to be unreliable. Alternatively, you could try to show that it is a WP:FRINGE theory, something which, again, would have to be reliably sourced. It all boils down to sources. Your comment even if they are not correct looks very much like your personal opinion, which, of course, is WP:OR. --T*U (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Slavic countries and territories

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is part of that category. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Serbia. Krakkos (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC regarding infobox

Latest comment: 4 years ago15 comments10 people in discussion
Consensus to add the infobox content "Recognised regional and minority languages" in this diff – comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) (non-admin closure)

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 the infobox contain "Recognised regional or minority languages" or should they be removed? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Clarification: The content in question is this. Interested editors might say Add or Remove together with their rationale. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Add: The infobox category has an option to add officially recognised minority languages. In 2005 Serbia and Montenegro signed on to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. After that union broke up, Serbia continued to adhere to these obligations as a successor state. Serbia recognises minority languages in its national legislation and a language becomes official in a municipality if it exceeds the 15% threshold (see detailed report by the Council of Europe, pages: 4-5 [14]). Having those languages in the infobox is important as the country's own laws enshrine this reality. As not all readers read the whole article, it helps a reader identify information quicker if this data is in the infobox about officially recognised languages.Resnjari (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Add, in principle. On the details, I'm not so sure. I thought the Romani language was recognized in Serbia and that page supports this, so perhaps it should be added. On the other hand, while I have taken a different position on other RfCs on this issue, I'm not sure other varieties of Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian-Montenegrin-perhapstobecomelongersoon are useful to readers, especially as the speech of autochtonous communities with those identities in Serbia often do not resemble the speech of homonymous groups in Bosnia, Croatia etc. --Calthinus (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove Minority languages spoken in total by less than 10% of the population and in "official use" (alongside Serbian which is the only official language in the country) in some 16-17 out of 117 municipalities, cannot be considered most basic info needed to be in the infobox. They are THOROUGHLY MENTIONED in the Languages section in the article, no need for doubling it in the infobox really. We just can't put everything someone wants in the infobox, it would make no sense since infobox cites only the most basic info in the shortest of forms - other, more elaborate info is cited in the article and that is the purpose of article. Klačko (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Include: This is not only something that "someone wants", it is one of the options in the template and as such it is fairly basic. Sadko stated above that "those min. rights are not just in theory", and from what I see, Serbia is indeed among the countries that really has taken minority rights seriously by regulating them in their laws. Not all countries do that, by far. So if there are any countries where the minority language parameter is relevant to use, Serbia certainly qualifies. --T*U (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove: I did not see any solid arguments why minority languages should be in the infobox (no, charters are not an argument for inclusion). My belif is that the paragraph on minority languages should be worked on. Sadko (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove complex issue that the box can't explain....plus no need 3 times in one article.--Moxy 🍁 22:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I read the article thoroughly. Languages are only mentioned once in the Language section which is in the middle of the page and nowhere else in the article (excluding the infobox). The demographic data on minorities is different to that of languages, though interrelated, are not synonymous. Also on issues of complexity, if featured articles like India whose linguistic complexity (recognised by its own laws) far outranks most other places in the world for diversity can do it for the infobox, or even China, a GA article who shares India's linguistic complexity, then doing the same [15] for Serbia shouldn't be complicated at all.Resnjari (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Resnjari  you are correct the wonderful map was removed...so yes only here one time...map should be added File:Serbia Language Map 2002.png (great to shown area)s ...mush more educational then the alphabet image there now.--Moxy 🍁 17:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Add. Minority languages are recognized as co-official languages in certain parts of the country. In Vojvodina (which covers large part of the country) official multilingualism is one of the main elements of regional identity. Outside of Vojvodina official multilingualism function in practice in municipalities such as Dimitrovgrad. The infobox provide for such an opportunity and practice of inclusion doesn't seem to be unprecedented. In fact is seems to be quite common in European context. As Serbian minority protection system developed within regional European minority protection system (and in fact Serbia and Yugoslavia were leaders in developing it), the system is well developed and implemented (especially in narrower regional context) it seems to me as the best choice to include it. The fact that Serbian is the first language and the only one recognize in the entire country is clearly visible from the infobox.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Note: I invited potentially interested users from Wiki projects Endangered languages, Languages, Serbia, Countries, Ethnic groups, Human rights, Yugoslavia and Europe to share their opinion and help us reach appropriate conclusion.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Add I came here via the request for comment on the Countries Project talk page. 1. Whether the information is already in the article or not does not seem relevant as a critique to remove this information - the infobox in general is meant to serve as a summary and overview of the country at hand, it will inevitably repeat information in the article, but is the point at which many readers will first engage with an article. 2. Minority languages are extremely notable per se - the history of practically all nation-states is riddled with issues related to language.--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Add I would generally lean towards not filling the infobox with too much information, plus it is already a long infobox. However, I clicked through to several other countries in the area and it seemed that most had this or very similar information included, and all country infoboxes are long. Therefore on the balance, and given that several posters indicate minority rights being an important issue in Serbia, I say add the information. Tchouppy (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Do we have a closure here? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:03, 28 October 2019 (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.

Serbia in WWII

There are no mentions of Kingdom of Yugoslavia joining Axis in 1941, Milan Nedić and Government of National Salvation participation in The Holocaust in Serbia. Also Chetniks aren't depicted as Nazi collaborators. We are aware of that the role Nedić and Ljotić played in the extermination of Serbia's Jews was downplayed by a number of Serbian historians. Thank you for trying to be NPOV on Wikipedia.

Population

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could you change the number for the population of Serbia as it is not correct. It shows 6.9 million however due to the amount of people that have come back to serbia as a result of the corona epidemic, the number actually exceeds 7.4 million (kosovo excluded) This is all public information you can find it online. Either way, the official population data will be updated in 2021 when the official national census takes place. Best regards! Makikas (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Makikas: Can you provide some WP:reliable source for your claim? Vanjagenije (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Issue of unsourced and provisory doubling of data excluding/including Kosovo in Serbia article

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

User @High Ground III edited population figures in infobox adding figures including Kosovo, thus raising numerous issues:


1. the mentioned changes were made without providing any source whatsoever (not to say credible), which is contrary to the basic policy of Wikipedia.


2. broke previous consensus without trying to reach a new one on the Talk Page before making changes; changes such as those have occurred from time to time and each time consensus on the Talk Page was reached to stick to the figures from the 2011 Serbian census, ie an updated estimate (based on that 2011 census) with a clear note "excluding Kosovo". Last discussions about this on the Talk Page were held on March 13 and November 13 2018, and both times the position was held as to go with the official figure with the note "excluding Kosovo" since there are no official figures for "Serbia including Kosovo" because for known reasons Serbian census couldn't be conducted in Kosovo and therefore is only correct to put official figure with note "exluding Kosovo" like was done and consensualy accepted before these last edits.


3. "manual" collection of data with providing no source and with mathematical summing of two figures in the process is neither methodologically nor encyclopedically correct. If that approach would be accepted, which above mentioned user High Ground III claims was guided by the reason of consistency and objectivity, then it poses a question: should we consequently duplicate any information with "including Kosovo" / "excluding Kosovo", even though we dont have a credible total figures for "Serbia including Kosovo"? Likewise, the infobox contains data on GDP ("excluding Kosovo", of course, because these are the only officially available data, given that Serbian institute of statistics did not perform statistical processing in Kosovo and other relevant economic organizations, IMF and WB, treat Serbia and Kosovo separately) and the HighGroundIII's approach would lead to duplication of any data, not to mention thath there are no data that have a total figure for Serbia with Kosovo, but provisory "manual" collection would have to be done.


Klačko (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Klačko, to begin, I would like to thank you for acknowledging that my rollbacks in the section regarding Kosovo's Declaration of Independence were justified. Now on to the question at hand. Firstly, I believe I did provide sources for the population, with them being Serbia's population excluding Kosovo and Kosovo's population. While the censuses might not be entirely credible due to certain groups boycotting them, they are currently viewed as credible enough to be used on both Serbia's page as well as Kosovo's. Secondly, to the best of my knowledge, the population question has never been answered before on the talk page. The incident to which you were referring was one guy asking to replace Serbia's population sans Kosovo with a population including the number of Serbs in Kosovo. To clear, this is not what I am asking permission to do. I am asking to provide the numbers of Serbia's population both with and without the population of Kosovo. This is because, as a disputed territory, both numbers should be included to avoid violating Wikipedia's policy on none POV. Thirdly, disagree that summing the separate population numbers is an improper way of finding the total. Population counts in any country or any multinational group of countries are done by summing the population count of their constituent territories rather than by taking a country with census or a census including the entire EU and ignoring these territories. Though I do concede that for a more encyclopedically uniform approach the data for the other figures including Kosovo would also have to be provided. High Ground lll (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


Hi High Ground III! Let me start by informing you that biased wording about Kosovo's declaration of independence was not mine at the first place although you somehow thought it was me. I fully agree with you about that and there is a constant tendency from some, I guess, Albanian editors to change text in this article with obvious political agenda and conotation behind it (look at the last edit to the article - wording of the subtext of Milošević's picture). Now, on the topic of this discussion... In regard to sources, we need one reliable source that cites total population of Serbia including Kosovo but that is a catch22 since reliable source in this regard could only be official census data and there is not a single one census data that includes Serbia with Kosovo. Serbia couldn't conduct its census downthere and in all official data of Serbia's Institute of Statistics (not just population, but all the others statistical areas) stands footnote "excluding Kosovo and Metohija" (like it stands in this article) because they were unable to collect&process statistical data from that territory... It is, in my opinion, methodologically correct approach. Note "excluding Kosovo" gives a reader direction to do the math by himself/herself and summ the two figures if he wants to know a total but putting a "manually" constructed total figure is, again in my opinion, not only methodologically incorrect but not encyclopedicaly correct - that is why in encyclopedias and almanachs there are lots of footnotes, to explain to readers background of one particular figure, data, or sentence. Another question subsequently arises: what about ethnic, religious and linguistic structure of population (all presented in the infobox) - how would it be possible to extrapolate percentages in total population of Serbia including Kosovo, "manually"? As for the fact that Kosovo is disputed territory that Serbia considers integral part of its territory, no one denies that since it is a well known fact, and reader in this article is constantly reminded about it (at least at 15-20 different places throughout the article). EU is not a good comparation since it is not a single country but a supranational organisation which doesn't take population censuses by itself. As for more consistent and uniform approach to say, GDP data among other things, it would create similar deadend since again not a single economic organisation (both IMF and WB have Kosovo as a full-scale member and therefore provide separate data) provide total data for both Serbia and Kosovo, nor does Serbia's Institute of statistics which goes with its footnote policy "excluding Kosovo and Metohija". To summ it up, I think that footnote "excluding Kosovo" is the best way methodologically and encyclopedically to handle this. I invite others to share their opinions on this.


Klačko (talk) 09:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


Medieval principality wasn't in the 8th century, but in the 7th century. Please correct that

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.206.103.222 (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Information from two sources

Latest comment: 3 years ago28 comments4 people in discussion

Information from RS. "Some scholars based on the claim of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus suggest that name Serb comes from the Latin servus, "servant" or "slave". English word "slave" has similar derivation, which is thought to have come from the name Slav."

  • "No consensus for this WP:FRINGE". This is information from two RS. First RS speak about two groups of scholars. This second groups of scholars has its conclusions ie "that name Serb comes from the Latin servus, "servant" or "slave" (based on Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus historical source) this is not WP:FRINGE theory. You have Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and there try to determine fringe theory. Sorbs, Sorbs (tribe), Serboi has nothing to do with this information and this RS. @TU-nor: are there any new problems here? Mikola22 (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
What are the names of those scholars? While writing the etymology section on the Serbian ethnonym didn't find, if my memory doesn't lie, a single scholar who advanced such a derivation.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Miki Filigranski: Try to ask historian Colin Wells who wrote book (Sailing from Byzantium: How a Lost Empire Shaped the World) and who says that "Others(scholars), following Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, suggest that the name Serb comes from the Latin servus, “servant” or “slave”. I didn't write a book. Good luck. Mikola22 (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but I really don't have time guessing who are these scholars. The weight is on you to give this information, not on me.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
His book has about 200 bibliographic sources. I can't get to all these sources to say who these scholars are but we must respect RS and word of historian. I don't live in a library. If there are any problems here there is a procedure which I also followed when was edit conflict. Couple of times I couldn't remove information from the article for which there was no source and I respected that, but here are four RS. Mikola22 (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Only thing we must respect is the editing policy. The POV you're pushing is at least a borderline violation of multiple NPOV principles. It doesn't matter if there are 1 or 4 RS if it is a minor theory which inclusion causes weight and balancing issues.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

If there is a problem with this information or the sources exist WP:RSN or WP:FTN. As for minor theory s concerned, this information is in two sources from 2014(Serbian) and 2018(Italian) and main RS of historian Colin Wells from 2007. This is theory which exist and this information was part of the article for about 6,7 months and without any specific reason was removed from the article. And now there is no specific reason other than WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I also don't like this and many other informations but we must respect sources. Mikola22 (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Which Serbian and Italian reliable sources you're talking about? Please cite the titles of the sources. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking information and respecting sources. Wikipedia is edited according to WP:WEIGHT. Are you aware you're pushing a specific POV by violation of editing policy?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Information from the source(Italian): "on the border with Franks; their name was derived from Lat. servus, because they were serfs or vassals of Romans" and "under the Roman domination and was reinterpreted by the conquerors in association with the condition of servants, hence the belief of Constantine the seventh that the name of Serbs derived from Lat. servus" (page 21, Giampietro Fabbri, University of Bologna [16]. Information from the source(Serbian): "The etymology of the name of Serbs was brought from lat, Servus-slave" (page 41 [17]). If there are any problems then I guess exist some Wikipedia procedure which disputes these sources(WP:RSN or WP:FTN). For now, these sources are reliable and we must respect that. Mikola22 (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I am asking again - do you properly understand how WP:WEIGHT and balancing aspects of NPOV work? Do you mean that by respecting the point of view of these few reliable sources we should disrespect the point of view of countless other reliable sources?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Information has this introduction (from RS "Some scholars") not all scholars. Why would we disrespect the point of view of some scholars because exist countless other reliable sources? Next to this information you may add information from this countless other reliable sources which speak about other etymology of Serbian name and this is NPOV. Mikola22 (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
If you have ever read and understood WEIGHT and various balancing aspects you would have never asked such a question. Are you aware that it's already stated there exist only two prevailing theories (by the way do you understand what "prevailing" means and it is related to balancing aspects because citing every possible theory on this article is out of WP:SCOPE?), and that we have a whole section dedicated to the etymology of the Serbian ethnonym (Names of the Serbs and Serbia#Etymology) where are cited countless sources and linguists and that nobody argues Latin derivation? It is enough that this theory, an intrigue of the past, is included in the relevant article - Names of the Serbs and Serbia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Miki Filigranski then erase it all and write your history in Wikipedia. You are the smartest in the world, smarter than those historians who write books which you do not acknowledge. Write your book so that he put here as RS.185.213.24.162 (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I support Editor Miki Filigranski on this one and his argumentation. The main problem here is that this is an article about a country, a summary article which means that only prevailing theories should be presented, there is an article that covers all other minor theories, including this one and dozens of other ones. By posting this theory and ignoring other ones it goes against the WP:WEIGHT. And yet if we put all other theories in this article it will be full with unnecessary information about the name origin which again breaks a balance of article. That is why we have special article that argues etymology. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 21:16, 18. October 2020 (UTC)

I knew you would support editor Miki Filigranski and editor Sadko will support him. You must first list other name theories ie etymology of the name with minimal four sources, additional much more sources. And then we will be able to evaluate WEIGHT and make conclusion. Until then, the confirmed information cannot be removed. Edit summary is clear. If there is a problem with the sources we know the procedure. I hope you will not come with another IP sockpuppet account. Mikola22 (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Don't worry about me, I gave my opinion, just keep it civil and restrain yourself from your usual bludgeon behaviour. We all know why you choose this theory to push and ignored other ones. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 21:38, 18. October 2020 (UTC)
We all now that I respect sources and procedure in this and other articles. Now show other theory based on various sources, to evaluate WEIGHT. Mikola22 (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Are you aware that we don't have to do it because it is already done? Are you aware that if you barely found 4 reliable sources which mention, and not only, that theory then it's already a lost battle, and it's basically beating of a WP:DEADHORSE? Accept the intermediate solution that the information is included in another relevant article, as any other constructive editor should do, and move on editing other articles. Stop wasting your time.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Etymology

The origin of the name Serbia is unclear. Historically, authors have mentioned the Serbs (Serbian: Srbi / Срби) and the Sorbs of Eastern Germany (Upper Sorbian: Serbja; Lower Sorbian: Serby) in a variety of ways: Cervetiis (Servetiis), gentis (S)urbiorum, Suurbi, Sorabi, Soraborum, Sorabos, Surpe, Sorabici, Sorabiet, Sarbin, Swrbjn, Servians, Sorbi, Sirbia, Sribia, Zirbia, Zribia, Suurbelant, Surbia, Serbulia / Sorbulia among others

  • Sources for this information mostly mention Sorbs and theirs historical names. Serbs are here mentioned sporadically. Serbian source "У немачким и латинским изворима такође се среће облик са -е (Serb), али врло ретко. Узрок томе свакако лежи у опасности од мешања са именом јужнословенских Срба." "In German and Latin sources, the form with -e (Serb) is also found, but very rarely. The reason for that certainly lies in the danger of mixing with the name of the South Slavic Serbs". These ethnonyms from article are mostly associated with Sorb names in historical records(German and Latin sources from area of Germany). As far as I can see sources from the article least talk about Serbs. These sources and informations are for the article about Sorbs not Serbs. Title from one source say "Лужички Србин" Lusatian Sorbs. Bold information is probably WP:OR or does not belong to this article. Mikola22 (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
First source for this information is (Petković 1926), this is oldated source and WP:AGE MATTERS, as well and WP:VERIFY, second source is a translation of some unknown source which speaks about Lusatian Sorbian language "Статус лужичкосрпског језика и његово место у оквиру других западнословенских језика".."The status of the Lusatian-Serbian language and its place within other West Slavic languages" and it is WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, aloso without any information about the original source, date etc, and third source speaks about Surbi (Lusatian Sorb area) and does not mention Serbs and their etymology, also WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. For now, this information with these sources has nothing to do with this article ie Serbian etymology WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, also this is WP:OR (you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented) and also WP:SYN. We need concrete historians, new reliable sources which specifically talk about Serbian name etymology. Mikola22 (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is a misunderstanding of the sources and policies.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
This sources speak about Sorbs etymology. If is something "misunderstand", sources and still talking about Sorbs(see sources). These are sources of information for that group. OR ("you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented"). We cannot with sources that speak about Sorb etymology or historical record use for article about Serbian etymology since the sources do not say so. If the source mentions Serbs in one or two sentence, then we only can used this informations. Mikola22 (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
No, they don't speak only about the etymology of the Sorbs because they as well scientific consensus relates Sorbian and Serbian ethnonyms - because it is the same ethnonym.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Cite information from the sources(page and citations) where write that "this is the same ethnonym" ie about Sorbian and Serbian ethnonyms which are the same. Sources do not say that at all, and drawing conclusions instead of RS is WP:OR. I am waiting for quotes and pages. Mikola22 (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Weight evaluation

(balancing issues; discuss first on the talk page) last edit summary of some editor, I respect that. @Theonewithreason and Miki Filigranski: You need provide other theory for Serbian etymology based on various sources, to evaluate WEIGHT. If this is not done information based on quality sources must be returned to the article because we must respect reliable sources which exist. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This article talk page is really not the place for this discussion. If you want to discuss etymology then move it to Talk:Names of the Serbs and Serbia page. I am repeating again, nobody is inclined to provide another theory to evaluate weight and balance because it is already done. I will gladly cite you every single linguistical and historical source at the other talk page or dispute resolution, but I am warning you that you won't like it because nobody is arguing such a theory. I already went through the bibliography. That's a fact and a reality of the issue you brought up. The only constructive thing you can do now is to accept that and move one, please.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
We have some informations from the sources about Serbian name. (it is already done) Where, show me? We can't evaluate WEIGHT if we do not have other sources which speak of another ethnonym theory. Therefore do not play with Wikipedia. You freely expose sources which speak about other Serbian ethnonym theory. This is "balancing issues" question. Mikola22 (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but I cannot engage in this discussion anymore. I give up. I have done what I could. It is simply embarrassing and insults common sense.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
You give up because this sources which speak about other Serbian ethnonym theory do not exist. There is this theory which I cite and the Iranian theory(just as the main source of historian Colin Wells says). I have never heard of any other(main) theories. If you think that one of these theories is WP:FRINGE you know the place for this procedure. Therefore all is said, my information is legitimate and based on 4 RS. We must respect the sources and everything else is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Mikola22 (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Miki Filigranski: It's always like this. Thank you for investing your time and nerves. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ Semi-Presidential Systems: Dual Executive And Mixed Authority Patterns
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Serbia/Archive_8&oldid=1090578902"