This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
@ 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)
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 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)
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)
@ 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)
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Changes should be made in "Formation" row, says 8th century while its 6-7th century when Serbs had formed prinicipality on Balkans. For example: /info/en/?search=Vi%C5%A1eslav_of_Serbia /info/en/?search=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)
/info/en/?search=Unknown_Archon /info/en/?search=Dervan
6-7th centuryas 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)
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....
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...
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to point out that Serbia's population is actually 8,811,464 George12333 ( talk) 21:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change ((Serbian)) to ((Serbian language|Serbian))
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)
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)
serbia is not kosovo
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{subst:trim|
leader_title2 = Prime Minister
| leader_name2 = [[Ana Brnabić, (interim)
}} Elstar95 ( talk) 12:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.turistickimagazin.com/index.php/sr/srbija-sr/2{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.blic.rs/society.php?id=2863When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Serbia didn't share anymore a border with Albania; Kosovo is largely an independente state with 110 recognitions. Changing is needed!
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)
seams liketo you is irrelevant. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.serbianrailways.com/active/en/home/glavna_navigacija/o_preduzecu/opste_informacije.htmlWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/137634.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/137634.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.pregled-rs.rs/article.php?pid=1494&id=39409&name=CINEMATOGRAPHY%20IN%20SERBIA,%202012&lang=enWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@ 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)
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remarks Мандић Матеја ( talk) 17:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Мандић Матеја ( talk) 09:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.pregled-rs.rs/article.php?pid=1494&id=39409&name=CINEMATOGRAPHY%20IN%20SERBIA,%202012&lang=enWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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!
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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
The Joshua project is NOT a WP:RS - Arjayay ( talk) 13:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
@ 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)
some scholarssuggest 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)
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 correctlooks very much like your personal opinion, which, of course, is WP:OR. -- T*U ( talk) 14:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.206.103.222 ( talk) 21:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
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."
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)
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)
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
(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 is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
@ 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)
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 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)
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)
@ 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)
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Changes should be made in "Formation" row, says 8th century while its 6-7th century when Serbs had formed prinicipality on Balkans. For example: /info/en/?search=Vi%C5%A1eslav_of_Serbia /info/en/?search=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)
/info/en/?search=Unknown_Archon /info/en/?search=Dervan
6-7th centuryas 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)
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....
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...
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to point out that Serbia's population is actually 8,811,464 George12333 ( talk) 21:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change ((Serbian)) to ((Serbian language|Serbian))
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)
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)
serbia is not kosovo
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{subst:trim|
leader_title2 = Prime Minister
| leader_name2 = [[Ana Brnabić, (interim)
}} Elstar95 ( talk) 12:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.turistickimagazin.com/index.php/sr/srbija-sr/2{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.blic.rs/society.php?id=2863When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Serbia didn't share anymore a border with Albania; Kosovo is largely an independente state with 110 recognitions. Changing is needed!
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)
seams liketo you is irrelevant. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.serbianrailways.com/active/en/home/glavna_navigacija/o_preduzecu/opste_informacije.htmlWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/137634.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/137634.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.pregled-rs.rs/article.php?pid=1494&id=39409&name=CINEMATOGRAPHY%20IN%20SERBIA,%202012&lang=enWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@ 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)
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remarks Мандић Матеја ( talk) 17:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Мандић Матеја ( talk) 09:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.pregled-rs.rs/article.php?pid=1494&id=39409&name=CINEMATOGRAPHY%20IN%20SERBIA,%202012&lang=enWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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!
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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
The Joshua project is NOT a WP:RS - Arjayay ( talk) 13:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
@ 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)
some scholarssuggest 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)
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 correctlooks very much like your personal opinion, which, of course, is WP:OR. -- T*U ( talk) 14:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.206.103.222 ( talk) 21:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
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."
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)
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)
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
(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)