Talk:Serbia

Outdated Information

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

Request to Include Factual Info on Serbia

The first state to be found in breach of the Genocide convention was Serbia. In the Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro case the International Court of Justice presented its judgment on 26 February 2007. It cleared Serbia of direct involvement in genocide during the Bosnian war, but ruled that Belgrade did breach international law by failing to prevent the 1995 Srebrenica genocide, and for failing to try or transfer the persons accused of genocide to the ICTY, in order to comply with its obligations under Articles I and VI of the Genocide Convention, in particular in respect of General Ratko Mladić.

Motto

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

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

768?

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

Edit request on 30 January 2012

Change last picture caption. Djokovic is a "FIVE-time" Grand Slam champion.

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

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

Airbrushing history?

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

Fixed now, I believe [1]. No such user (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Semi-presidential or parliamentary republic?

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

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

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

Ah I see. I thought that we had "semi-presidential" mentioned somewhere in the article, and I'm sure it used to be here. However, it's not. It has been discussed long time ago, see Talk:Serbia/Archive 4#Semi-Presidential Republic, but with no clear conclusion. If not in the infobox, that should be mentioned in Politics section, as well as in Politics of Serbia. However, the source you bring is not reliable, being a blog. We need to find something better than that. This one [2] is, unfortunately, a student's work, so it's out too. http://www.google.rs/search?q=Serbia+semi-presidential+system gives some useful hits, but it should be researched a bit more. No such user (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Recent broad edit

Buttons made an edit affecting several different parts of the article. These include changing the list of events and removing the population, Environmental Protection Agency, and the note that Belgrade is among the largest cities in Southeast Europe. Other parts of the edit are non-controversial. I reverted this because there was no edit summary, and some of the changes were not unambiguously an improvement. However, No such user reverted again. Can either of them explain the need for the more controversial parts of this edit? Superm401 - Talk 09:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If someone improves 20 things, and you disagree with another 3, then it's prudent just to revert those 3, manually if necessary, not everything. I don't have strong opinion about those removed sentences; their relevance is rather questionable. No such user (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't quite the way I saw the ratio. Also, some of the changes were neither wrong nor necessary (e.g. capitalizing templates). However, I've tried to just revert the changes that I think need discussion. Superm401 - Talk 22:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? You are nitpicking over my minor edits? Jesus, some people have no life... my edits are almost always aesthetic, summaries or grammatical in nature, the only "controversial edit" You could argue that I made was removing one of the "important dates" from the table, one which has been routinely discussed on this talk page as not being a date of formation of Serbia. Further the Belgrade population data is constantly altered back and fourth on the Belgrade article with little compromise over the editors, so its best to just leave it out. And lastly, Belgrade's population is about the average size among Southeast European capitals, nothing encyclopedic there. P.S. I am reverting you're revert until you can formulate an actual legitimate argument against mine. Best of luck, Buttons (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

edit request

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

Karađorđe Petrović

Would it be possible to include the picture of Karađorđe Petrović again on the article about Serbia? He is named as the founder of the modern Serbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.51.48 (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)