Talk:Serbia/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2024

I would like to update "Sports" section of this article, as it is quite outdated. Lukastevanovic991 (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2024

I want to change number of inhabitants of Serbian cities according to the latest 2022 census, current data is outdated. Source: https://popis2022.stat.gov.rs/sr-Latn/ Acko2348 (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Recent changes

The responsibility to explain recent changes lies with the user who recently provided new information, especially given that the material was disputed. Please, do so. — Sadko (words are wind) 10:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I need to inform the administrators that the user Sadko has been blocked from editing Eastern Europe.[] Again he started deleting sources and doing disruptive editing on Wikipedia. [] 192.71.144.210 (talk) 11:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It's quite ridiculous that this happens every time anything remotely "negative " about Serbia is added to the article. It took an entire RfC just to add a basic link to crime in Serbia, so I'm not surprised to see a well sourced section removed on dubious grounds. It seems the priority on this article is a little bit too focused on bragging about sports rather than giving a balanced and neutral overview of the country as a whole.

We can have a section dedicated to telecommunications, but not human rights.

We can have a link to list of protected natural resources in Serbia, but crime in Serbia is contested to the point it required an RfC to add.

I think there is a wider issue on this article than just recent changes, there is a pretty clear nationalistic opposition to anything critical of Serbia being added to the article. The problem is this isn't a propaganda site, it's meant to be a neutral encyclopedia and it is WP:NOTCENSORED.

@Sadko Since you opted to remove everything that was added about human rights rather than trimming it and incorporating it into an existing section, what section do you propose this information is added to given that the edit included several high quality up to date sources? What sources do you feel should be added to offer a more balanced overview? TylerBurden (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

This was neither a high quality nor well informed section, it was per wp:cherrypicking included with pointing out different years with exclusively negative changes in it, and since this is contentious topic, editors should be aware of wp:neutrality policy, Sadko was correct in several points, that those statistics always changes, that other countries don't have it included in their articles, like Germany, USA or even Albania or Kosovo, and that this section was disproportionally too long, and since this article is summarisation of most important information about this country and the people - lots of parts are already included in contemporary period, i.e. there is a section that already states that: "According to a number of international analysts, Serbia has suffered from democratic backsliding into authoritarianism,[149][150][151] followed by a decline in media freedom and civil liberties." Furthermore there are articles about human rights that are specifically created to cover human rights issues of specific country. Theonewithreason (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

We could add 1 sentence (Politics) based on Civil liberties index. Critical thoughts and comments have already been provided in the article, as is appropriate. Initiating an RfC is often justified, as it helps Wikipedia progress; however, personal opinions and random complaints are not relevant to the discussion. Additionally, please be mindful of where you're placing your comments, as this thread is slowly becoming disorganized. — Sadko (words are wind) 21:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The new section I created is essential for understanding the current state of human rights in Serbia, particularly in light of significant concerns raised by reputable sources, including Amnesty International and the United States Department of State. This content highlights a notable decline in the observance of human rights since 2012, as detailed in the Freedom House Report and recognized internationally. Wikipedia encourages the inclusion of diverse perspectives, in accordance with WP:WEIGHT, and underscores the importance of citing reliable sources as outlined in its guidelines. The information presented in this section is well-supported by credible references, and removing it would not only compromise the article's integrity but also contradict Wikipedia's commitment to providing comprehensive and balanced coverage of critical issues. According to WP:UNCENSORED, content should not be removed simply because it is controversial or critical. I'm sorry but accept it. And also regarding WP:NPOV, the section aims to present factual information grounded in reputable sources, thereby contributing to a balanced representation of Serbia's human rights landscape. Iaof2017 (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Is that really the case? From what I can tell, this looks like a classic example of WP:CHERRYPICK. All of this could be summarized in one or two sentences within the sections that already exist in the article. This addition is weak because it focuses on just a small part of a much larger topic, and strangely, it highlights only the negative aspects. Furthermore, similar sections are missing in many, if not most, articles about UN member states. For instance, the issue of Human rights in the USA is briefly mentioned with a link to the main article, and there's no separate section in the Germany article either. Given that this page is already overly long, with over 500 references and recent efforts to streamline some sections, adding more material (with even more to come) seems excessive. Once there's consensus on this issue, more sentences could be added if necessary. This addition, in my book, is simply way bellow the level of this article. Also, those statistcs often change, which has been the case with Serbia. There is none of that in the text you proposed. Also, please do not engage in EW and do not drag other editors into similiar situations.

Secondly, could you kindly point out where and when you achieved a clear consensus to include Milosevic's photo? What we need is a clear proof of concensus on this matter. I used the Visual Editor and didn’t notice the bold, caps-lock text you added, advising editors not to be bold and act based on their own judgment, which, all things considered, would likely lead to the image being removed. — Sadko (words are wind) 13:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

What policy based reasons do you have for removing the image of Milošević when he is one of if not the biggest topic of the section it accompanies? TylerBurden (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I've asked a clear and relevant question and got no answer. It makes one wonder why.

There are 2 problems here: 1) It is highly doubtfull that WP:CONSENSUS was achieved. 2) There are WP:SANDWICHING issues. Do check the old (2010) and the new (2022) WP theme, width - wide.

Another question arises: why was an artistic photo of Milosevic used? Wouldn't a picture of him alongside other Balkan leaders and foreign mediators signing a peace agreement be more appropriate? Including a more descriptive caption could provide additional context and prevent any potential misinterpretation. — Sadko (words are wind) 21:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Sadko. Hitler's picture is on the Germany page [], so nobody moves it. Hitler was a historical figure like Milošević. You would put a picture where he is signing as some kind of peacekeeper to make him look better, instead of his portrait, and he ended up in the Hague as a war criminal. These are historical facts. Everyone can see your Serbian POV, that's why you were blocked from editing [] Eastern Europe.192.71.144.210 (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

So you're going to complain about not getting an answer, while also completely avoiding the question directed at yourself. How is that productive?

No good reason has ever been given for removing the image, he is a focal point of the article section, and is thus entirely appropriate per MOS:SECTIONLOC, which is an established standard per the WP:MOS, not some essay like WP:CHERRYPICKING that is constantly being referenced to with this article.

I have no idea what you are even on about regarding the "artistic photo", it is a high quality image taken around the timeframe the section describes. The section is about Milošević's tenure, not him signing peace agreements. It's quite baffling you think that would be a WP:DUE change and seems to be entirely based on your personal feelings rather than Wikipedia standards. TylerBurden (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Step by step TylerBurden. Once again, where and when was this consensus reached? I’ve never seen captions added warning editors "not to mess" with a single image without any prior consensus. That's not okay towards other editors. I’ve checked the archive.

It's quite simple: the photo was likely taken by one of the best Yugoslav photographers, renowned for his portraits. Yes, the first half of his career (which included an entire war, by the way) concluded with that signature, so to speak. That's highly relevant and fitting. Exactly, MOS indicates there shouldn't be too many images, and now we have a mess. If this stonewalling continues, another RfC might be necessary. — Sadko (words are wind) 22:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

If you can't accept that there have been multiple discussions about the image and none of them have resulted in the image being removed being consensus, then perhaps you don't understand the idea of consensus.

At this point you're straight up misrepresenting what's on the article, the editor note (which I did not add, by the way) included is "PLEASE SEE TALKPAGE AND ITS ARCHIVE BEFORE REMOVING THE IMAGE", I think that is not unreasonable given multiple attempts to remove it that have cited reasons violating WP:NOTCENSORED such as him being "controversial".

Are you actually arguing that the image is somehow less suitable because it was taken by "one of the best Yugoslav photographers"? Please explain how that makes sense because I must have missed that policy or guideline that prohibits the use of work of renowned photographers. Giving particular weight to any certain event is not neutral, including a picture that is simply of him makes a whole lot more sense, the IP above while very direct has a point that it arguably comes across like trying to present him in a certain way.

The only WP:STONEWALLING (another essay) I see on this article is the POV nationalist opposition to content critical of Serbia, given that the latest RfC overcame that stonewalling which was initiated by an editor above, Theonewithreason, feel free to start one since it tends to bring in neutral eyes that will look at things objectively. TylerBurden (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully ask that we avoid labeling people, as it's not considerate; WP is not X. It would be helpful to incorporate more references and constructive additions to the article. While adding tags and discussing politically-minded aspects of the country is important, it's just one part of the bigger picture and shouldn't be the primary focus. No worries, will do. Have a good one. — Sadko (words are wind) 23:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello @TylerBurden:. Could you kindly elaborate, in good faith, on what you meant by nice try and clarify specifically what you find problematic with the changes I proposed? — Sadko (words are wind) 23:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

You have expressed desire before to change the image, and now you attempted to do so in a WP:BOLD edit, followed by other image changes, as is your right, and I have mine to revert you. Not sure how else you want me to elaborate "in good faith", sorry if you took offense I guess.

Your reason give for the change: "added with additional context and detail. I firmly believe it is more informative and visually engaging compared to another standard portrait"

"Visually engaging" is very subjective, you seem to have based this entirely on personal opinion, why is a picture of a banknote more visually engaging than an actual image of the man described? If I'm a reader reading about someone, I'd probably more likely want to see an image of them than some banknote.

I'm less opposed to your caption change, though I don't think there is anything wrong with the current one either. TylerBurden (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

1) A 500 billion banknote is certainly not something editors come across every day, don't you agree? Official portraits of politicians, on the other hand, are much more common. 2) Using Vector Legacy (2010) presents a significant issue — the entire appearance becomes a chaotic mess. Give it a try and see for yourself. 3) My caption provides significantly more detailed and relevant information. 4) I’ve consolidated the essence of another image into this one, making the article readable and well-structured in both the old and new Wikipedia skins. — Sadko (words are wind) 23:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Interesting sure, but not the right place for it. The reason why such sections with heavy focus on an individual are often accompanied by an image of said individual is because well, it makes sense, see the aforementioned reasons. The relevance of the banknote simply isn't there, at least not compared to an image of the person the section is largely about. I use Vector Legacy 2010 and it looks fine, I also tried switching it to the default and it looks fine there too. TylerBurden (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Widespread violence in Serbia?

Is there widespread violence in Serbia? Because there exists an article called A Serbian Film, so I shouldn't visit Serbia because people will be engaging in tons of violence and killing each other. Isn't that how Serbia is, so revise the Wikipedia article about it? I'm 16 139.55.234.81 (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general questions about Serbia, if you want the Wikipedia article revised, you would need to provide a number of reliable sources (WP:RS) supporting this assertion. A Serbian Film is a fictional movie.. TylerBurden (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

If possible - Adding Serbian history before Namanjic dinasty

Višeslav was the first Serbian ruler known by name. He was a progenitor of the Serbian ruling family, known in historiography as the Vlastimirović dynasty. He was descended from the unnamed "Serbian prince"/"Unknown Archon" who led his people to the Dalmatia province and established hereditary rule under Byzantine suzerainty during the reign of Byzantine Emperor Heraclius (610–641). He died before the arrival of the Bulgars on the Balkans (680). The names of Višeslav's predecessors were not included in the DAI. The dynasty ruled the Principality of Serbia from the early 8th century until around 960. The history of the early medieval Serbian Principality and the Vlastimirović dynasty is recorded in the work De Administrando Imperio ("On the Governance of the Empire", DAI), compiled by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (r.  913–959). Mention of the Serbs in the Balkans appears also in Einhard's Royal Frankish Annals, written in 822 AD, when prince Ljudevit went from his seat at Sisak to the Serbs (believed to have been somewhere in western Bosnia). Einhard mentions "the Serbs, a people that is said to hold a large part of Dalmatia" (Latin: ad Sorabos, quae natio magnam Dalmatiae partem obtinere dicitur). 178.189.48.98 (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Authoritarianism

I added that the government of Serbia is an authoritarian dictatorship since the President today announced that no other government shall be formed as long as he lives. I would like this edit to stay and I would like to ask for protection of the page, so that it cannot be further edited. Bsinisa (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2025

2001:A61:114E:3401:7F7E:6011:F17A:CE00 (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Kosova is Indipendent country

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Romani population

User:TylerBurden and User:Theonewithreason, please discuss the dispute about the number of the population of Romani, instead of edit-warring and WP:POINT reverts. This dispute is obviously less about the reliablity of sources (as are being provided RS), and more about inclusion of both official data and estimates. Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@Theonewithreason Per WP:BRD, since you want to remove any estimate of the Romani population that isn't the official Serbian state one, you should be providing your explanations for doing so here.

There are numerous sources stating that the actual number of Romani people in Serbia is higher than the official estimate, partially due to discrimination leading to Romani people concealing their identity. What exactly is wrong with including both the official and unofficial estimates? TylerBurden (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

It is quite simple, there is significant drop of population in all ex yu countries in the last 10 years, in Serbia case as per population census in 2022 there were 6.647.000 residents [] comparing to 2011. census [] where there was 7,186,862, every single ethnic group including Serbs had population drop due to mostly emigration, i.e Hungarians who are second largest ethnic group counted 253,899 in 2011 but dropped to 184.000 etc. Per WP:COMMONSENSE Romani population also dropped which is confirmed by official census however the sources you are posting show not just that their population dropped but even increased, also this page is summarisation of information not a unofficial estimation and speculations. Theonewithreason (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Not common sense, but your own WP:OR, speaking of which, would @Sadko mind explaining how an edit containing three references is original research, or are we just going keep removing well sourced content citing random policies that don't apply?

Per WP:DUE: "neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". Evidently the Romani population being higher than the official estimate is a significant viewpoint, yet it's seemingly being censored from the article. I wonder why that could be. TylerBurden (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I don’t mind adding that the actual number could be and likely is higher, but I do take issue with citing specific figures based on original research, especially given the significant gap between 250,000 and 600,000. Census data strongly suggest that the latter is highly improbable. — Sadko (words are wind) 21:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Sadko. The neutrality also requires that the sources should represent wp:rs which also means that the sources who are claiming different point countering the official source should present verifiable information, per wp:v which failed in this case, also per wp:undue the editor who is posting those sources should reconsider all other sources discussing this subject i.e. this source of equal quality says that due to discrimination around 59 000 Romani people between 2014 and 2017 asked for asylum in Germany [], The same case was presented for the other Balkan countries. So as you can see, Romani people also emigrate like other ethnic groups. Theonewithreason (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I guess it is necessary to list some sources in plain view, since you keep claiming it's unsupported despite references being provided.

Since you are bringing up Germany, a German source (German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development) = 500,000+

EcR/Council of Europe = 250,000 to 600,000 people

Civil Rights Defenders, page 5 = 250,000 to 600,000 people

These are reliable sources, themselves citing research.

This should be as you said, simple, we have different sources saying different things, so including the official census while adding that other estimates give a higher number is how you handle such a situation according to WP:NPOV. If basic Wikipedia policy like this can't be respected, I guess we'll (once again) have to initiate an RfC to bring in uninvolved editors. TylerBurden (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Like Sadko said, there is no problem in saying that the Romani population is probably higher then estimated, that is in every Balkan country but to claim 250 000 to 600 000 is wp:or speculation. Theonewithreason (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Especially since the source you posted, that claims that figure estimates that based on a web site [] which cannot confirm those estimates to be official and also making this claims based on 2017. that is 5 years before the Serbian official census, and before covid so this is also WP:AGEMATTERS. The German source is based on information and speculations based on 2011 source which only confirms my argument since the claims in 2011 were lower than 11 years later even though the numbers of Roma in 2011 was officially higher, logically since Serbia had more people overall, Theonewithreason (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

This is bizarre at this point. You are claiming these figures are WP:OR (ironically while yourself talking about things like covid, actual original research provided by none other than yourself), when they are literally the numbers in the source. The entire point is that the estimates are not offical, are you seriously claiming this data is only deemed valid if it's from the Serbian state?

It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to play detective with WP:OR, which is what you have been doing in this entire thread. The only job is to give a WP:DUE representation of sources, and if WP:RS still deem these numbers accurate enough estimates to include in reports that are actually more recent than the official 2022 Serbian census, then no amount of WP:STONEWALLING and actual original research is going to change it. Now both of you are even admitting that the sources are likely correct in saying that the number is higher, but it seems like you have some sort if cutoff point in how many Romanis are allowed to be estimated, despite there actually being numbers in the sources, so what is this number and what WP:RS (other than the official Serbian census, which is already included and no one is arguing for to be removed) supports it? TylerBurden (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Our job is to check sources, and those sources failed verification and WP:AGEMATTERS, and like I said the estimate that sources are posting that between 250000 and 600 000 Romani population is wp:or, since none of them can verify those estimates. Theonewithreason (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Please tone down a bit, TylerB; such assumptions and claims (like you have some sort if cutoff point in how many Romanis are allowed to be estimated) are not appreciated. Criticizing others simply for holding different views goes against the spirit of open discussion and democracy, the core value of western civilization. : ) It's fairly straightforward: claiming that ~10% of Serbia’s population is Romani raises concerns about verifiability, as outlined in WP:VERIFY, and may easily fall under WP:OR. We're applying WP:COMMONSENSE in this case. — Sadko (words are wind) 21:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

In other words, an RfC is needed, since neither of you are actually addressing the questions and points. This seems to be one of the only articles it's necessary to hold RfC's to add basic information, quite reminiscent of when an RfC was required a couple years back to add a simple link to crime in Serbia. I guess it's what happens when Wikipedia articles are patrolled by WP:TENDENTIOUS nationalists. TylerBurden (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Learning good manners from an early age is a lifelong asset. — Sadko (words are wind) 19:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

And not removing information because WP:IDONTLIKEIT should be a quality of any Wikipedia editor, WP:DUE exists after all. TylerBurden (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Map Correction request

Hi. I do not know how to create or edit these SVG files myself, but the current globe map used on this article has wild inaccuracies. French Southern America is highlighted in Green, the borders of the European Union are a country, Kosovo is strangely smooth to the extent it lost Mitrovica, and there are graphical issues like the border of Croatia being semi-transparent or thinned out. Freakmenn (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted it to a previous version which has the EU borders and does not highlight French Guiana. CMD (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like the previous change was supposed to be a technical change. @Xodrium can you maybe fix your SVG version of File:Serbia (orthographic projection).svg? --Joy (talk) Joy (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I changed it because it contained a single raster image embedded in an SVG file, rather than a fully vectorized image. I forgot to consider that the borders were inaccurate. Xodrium (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!! Freakmenn (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

whatever solution was issued by the editors the map seems to have been reverted to it's originally wrong state. Eu is still shown as one state , the inter-irish border is missing, the iran-saudi border shows a neutral zone that was diplomatically solved in the 90s and no longer exists. VictorVie (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Serbians helped Turks to conquer Constantinople

An important data about Medieval ages missing: the participation of Serbs, in alliance with Turks, to the conquer of Constantinople in 1453! 81.196.7.70 (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a reputable source to back that up? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

There were some Serb forces sent by Đurađ Branković (after Serbia was vassalized by the Ottomans), but I do not really think this is significant enough for inclusion here. There were other people from other ethnic groups that also took part on the Ottoman side. Mellk (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Out of WP:SCOPE here and already mentioned at Serbian Despotate#Đurađ Branković restored. Also, modern national conception of history does not correspond well to the feudal period as the feudal state/noblemen relations and activities do not translate directly to of a modern nation (people as a collective). A common misconception. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

RfC on Romani population estimate

Should estimates on the Romani population other than the official 2022 Serbian census be included in the demographics section? --TylerBurden (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Yes: Since WP:RS suggest that the actual population is much higher, possibly to the extent of Romani people being the largest minority in the country, only listing the official Serbian census based on self submitted identities seems not only WP:UNDUE, but is poorly informing readers about a notable minority of the country. According to these other estimates, Romani people are likely purposefully not identifying as such to avoid discrimination, or lack documents. Some sources include the EcR/Council of Europe, Civil Rights Defenders and Balkan Insight. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• No:The current RfC is poorly formulated and lacks substantive information. It's unclear whether it's asking for a specific sentence or expressing a general sentiment. This ambiguity makes it misleading, especially given that our colleague TB appears to be asserting that up to 10% of the Serbian population is Romani, based on WP:SYNTH which heavily ventures into questionable WP:OR territory. One of his sources is 8 years old. There's also a potential problematic undertone: disagreement is subtly framed as morally or ethically suspect, effectively discouraging open discussion by implying that dissent equates to being labeled with negative terms (see the messages and the tone above please). — Sadko (words are wind) 19:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  There is no WP:SYNTH, the numbers are right in the sources, it seems you think somehow repeating this accusation will make them go away. Based on the arguments above, how can we WP:VERIFY the Serbian census as accurate, given that it's entirely based on self reported ethnicities? Looks like there is agreement that the actual population is higher, and this is a notable enough fact that it has been covered significantly in international studies and reports. I suppose we could ignore the numbers even though we have them and just be vague instead, simply stating that the unofficial number is likely higher, if that's what you prefer. TylerBurden (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Yes/No: I fail to see an issue with the editing policy as expressed by other editors in the discussion above, but such estimations are possibly out of scope being too detailed for an article with only abstract text of multiple sections on separate topics. However, it could be edited using the mentioned RS that the "official number is likely underestimated" without specifying the estimated number (which differs in the RS). The estimated number could be mentioned in the article Demographics of Serbia or even better, where could be even further elaborated, the Romani people in Serbia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• The inclusion of population estimates other than those from the official 2022 Serbian census in the demographics section can be appropriate, provided that such estimates come from reliable, verifiable, and neutral sources, in accordance with Wikipedia’s core content policies—especially WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS.

While the official census data is the standard source for demographic statistics and should be given primary weight, it is widely acknowledged by scholars and international organizations that Romani populations are often underreported in official statistics due to a range of factors, including social stigma, self-identification issues, and mistrust in authorities. Consequently, credible alternative estimates—for example, those published by the Council of Europe, UN agencies, OSCE, or reputable academic studies—may be included to provide context and balance, especially if they are significantly different from the official numbers.

Боки 💬 📝 19:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• No: As per reasoning above, and what two other editors here presented, most of the sources present different estimates, and have problems with several Wikipedia policies like WP:AGEMATTERS some of them being contradicting to itself with estimations and there are other sources presenting even different estimations, however given that editor TylerBurden already made another edition to the article [] and I was agreeing with that statement in discussion above, I think that this addition is acceptable . Theonewithreason (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, following that edit, this RfC is no longer needed. @TylerBurden: — Sadko (words are wind) 23:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• No People were free to declare their ethnicity in the census. The issue with most unofficial estimates about Balkan minorities such as the Romani and Vlachs is that they are baseless and far away from reality, and this article, which is not dedicated to the Romani in Serbia, does not need them.

CoE and UN mentioned above are highly unreliable sources for such issues, as they tend to overestimate minorities and don't do any real in-depth research. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• No:Only the official 2022 Serbian census meets Wikipedia’s standard for verifiability and reliability. Alternative estimates may lack transparency in methodology and could introduce bias.

Allowing unofficial estimates in one case opens the door to selective or politically motivated data elsewhere, undermining neutrality.

Including alternative estimates could give disproportionate weight to speculative figures, especially if they vary significantly without sufficient explanation.

--Ranko Nikolić (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

This seems like a strange definition of WP:NPOV, which says "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". As far as I can tell, the only source taking the official census at face value is Serbia itself, every other source seems to agree that the population is higher to varying degrees, but for some reason even though they they are from major sources like the UN and the Human Rights Council they are being shut down. A neutral encyclopedia is meant to summarize information, not only provide state data. TylerBurden (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• In theory. Concerns have been raised about these particular additional sources, and they should each (as part of regular discussion not an RfC, probably) be discussed as to their merits and/or faults individually. There is no policy basis on which to exclude other sources and trust only a governmental official one (I think everyone here knows that pretty often governmental sources actually prove untrustworthy), but there is also no policy basis on which to force inclusion of an reliance on any particular source, simply because not all other source can be "banned", if that particular source is shown to be problematic.

  Potential compromise: I would suggest that a way around this conflict is to note (with regard to WP:AGEMATTERS) that source X estimated this population in YYYY as Z%, etc., and conclude with the recent census self-identification stats as the most current and pertinent figure. That perceptions about or measurements of (sometimes even definition of) a demographic have changed over time is often itself encyclopedically pertinent information (or start with it and give historical quibbles as an afterthought; there are reasonable ways to write it in either direction).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The editor who started this RfC later made this inclusion into article. [] is this something what would be you proposal too? Theonewithreason (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. Such estimates *may* be included if they are made/supported by RS. What exactly would you like to include? Alaexis_¿question? 09:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  If it's about this edit then it seems okay. The only thing that bothers me is that it's unclear where these numbers come from originally. This 2024 report references this one published in 2018 whose source is "See “Estimates on Roma population in European countries”. Retrieved on February 14, 2017 from: http://www.coe.int/de/web/portal/roma." I cannot find any population data there.

  Maybe the way to resolve this issue is to look for scholarly studies of the Roma population in Serbia. Alaexis_¿question? 09:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Please think about a more suitable venue. This article is already quite lengthy; it would be more appropriate and practical to include any additional information here. By doing so, we can freely add new and further expand with different information, without cluttering this page. --نوفاك اتشمان (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Image

Can I change the Coat of arms to the lesser one? Dynamismcool (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

There's no valid reason to do anything of the sort. — Sadko (words are wind) 22:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

World Map has numerous errors.

I had spoken about this previously in this talk page, to which it was reverted to a previous version - which was a PNG inside of a vector (not ideal) but had the inaccuracies fixed. it has now been reverted to the version that had ridiculous map inaccuracies. The borders of the European Union are a country, Kosovo is strangely smooth to the extent it lost Mitrovica, there are graphical issues like the border of Croatia being semi-transparent or thinned out, and the image maintains this blocky form that is unusual for a map file (See: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/EU-Greece_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/USA_orthographic.svg, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Europe-UK_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg)

@Iktsokh, on the history for the image you had posted you fixed the inaccuracies, but the file still contains ones like Europe being one big country or Kosovo being sanded out. I see you fixed French Guiana being highlighted and other errors, so I appreciate you trying to patch up this image. Is it possible you can fix the other border errors as well? Freakmenn (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I've restored the national borders again. If national borders keep being removed please raise this disruption on Commons. CMD (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Answer me Pls Wikipedia thema:Take out kosova from map of serbia.

Kosovo is recognized as an independent state by over 100 UN member states. The current map description could be misleading and should clearly state that Kosovo is an independent country according to the majority of Western states, while Serbia does not recognize it. Kosovo declared independence in 2008 and has been recognized as an independent state by more than 100 UN member states, including the United States, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom.

While Serbia does not recognize Kosovo, the map description should clearly reflect that Kosovo is considered an independent country by a majority of Western and EU states, and that its status is disputed rather than presenting it as Serbian territory. Altin2 (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

The current phrasing "claimed but uncontrolled territory" is sufficient. The number of countries that recognize Kosovo as independent is a detail that does not belong in the caption, and in any case there is no reason this should be limited to "Western states". Mellk (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

While captions should remain concise, the phrase "claimed but uncontrolled territory"

can be misleading without minimal context. Kosovo is not merely an internal territorial

claim but a partially recognized independent state with its own institutions, government,

and international relations.

A neutral formulation should acknowledge that Kosovo's status is disputed rather than

implying de facto Serbian sovereignty. Even a brief clarification such as "disputed status"

would better reflect the situation in accordance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Altin2 (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

You are misreading the caption. "Claimed and uncontrolled" is an explicit statement that there is no de facto Serbian sovereignty. CMD (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I understand that the wording is intended to deny de facto Serbian control.

However, the term "claimed" without additional context may still be interpreted

as an unresolved internal territorial claim rather than a case of partial international

recognition.

A formulation emphasizing "disputed status" would more clearly reflect the nature

of the disagreement (international recognition vs. non-recognition), while remaining

fully consistent with the intent of the caption and Wikipedia's neutrality principles. Altin2 (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

It is unclear what you are reading into this. "internal territorial claim" does not make much sense, if it is internal it is not really described as a claim. A claim is inherently disputed, and inherently external. CMD (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

ICJ advisory opinion

Regarding the recent edit war, @Theonewithreason, you're accusing Kogjaimeqem of being WP:TENDENTIOUS and adding their personal opinion to the article for citing the opinion of the International Court of Justice, which was attributed in the text just as the National Assembly is. Can you explain how your assertion makes any sense from a Wikipedia policy standpoint? If there is a dispute, why is one major opinion allowed but not the other, and how is adding referenced content including your personal opinion? Thanks. TylerBurden (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, if you are concerned regarding wikipedia guidelines, the first one is Wp:undue since from that political standpoint, it should be presented with appropriate context and weight. It is important to note that a number of countries consider Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence to be illegal or contrary to international law, and therefore do not recognize Kosovo as a sovereign state, therefore it is not a member of UN. There are wikipedia articles covering this. Because of this, the issue remains disputed internationally. The way this is edited and added (However.... in fact... ) addresses this question as a definitive and actually normal, which in this case is anything but. So this has nothing to do with my personal opinion, it has to do with WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, poor rephrase, which in this case give WP:undue, also let us not forget of WP:editwarring without reaching a consensus which is in eastern Balkan topics is usually a rule. thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I see no issue with the content but I agree that the wording could be better. There is a whole article about the advisory opinion on Wikipedia, so it can be linked. It should be noted that the advisory opinion is only about the declaration of independence and not about Kosovo's political status. There is nothing wrong with presenting another POV. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm not seeing the point with the WP:DUE argument as long as the content is attributed and clear about what it is is saying. If there are multiple POV's in WP:RS, it seems more tendentious to insist on only including one view than it does adding another one with attribution. TylerBurden (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I also don't see any issue with the content. It's a valid edit and covered by RS. ~2026-14746-56 (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I have restored it with an altered wording, feel free to improve if there are any issues. TylerBurden (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about your personal opinion, you're accusing them of including theirs, when they are including the view of the International Court of Justice. It makes no sense and seems like a failure to WP:AGF at best. TylerBurden (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2026 (UTC)