Talk:Serbia

Article seems biased

- This article seems to be biased somehow and doesn’t talk of issues that might be disadvantageous to Serbs.

- The article doesn’t speak correctly of Voivodina and its short status as a Serbian province in Austria-Hungary. (See main article Voivodina.)

- The article doesn’t mention a major territory issue: after World War I in 1920, the region of Voivodina was detached from Hungary and was granted by the victorious allied powers to the Kingdom of Serbia in the Treaty of Trianon, and in 1945 it became part of Yugoslavia.

- The article should refer in more details to Serbia’s role in the Yugoslav wars. Again, it seems to be biased and it doesn’t mention facts and issues that might be disadvantageous to Serbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.168.71.114 (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there is barely any reference on the kosovo war and serbian involvment in that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.7.62.30 (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Motto should be stated

Our country motto Only Unity Saves the Serbs / Samo Sloga Srbina Spašava should be stated on the page. There should also be the english translation of the anthem God of Justice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.123.82 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

anthem of Serbia

Can someone put the national anthem of Serbia on the main page of the country please! this is the file: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.168.23 (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

New coat of arms

Please can you update to the new coat of arms. I see flag is updated, but coat of arms isnt.

Bets regards,

Mihajlo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.194.215 (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Albania borders Kosovo II

No such user changed a clause in the opening paragraph from

its border with Albania is disputed

to

additionally, it borders Albania through Kosovo, whose status is disputed

He explained his edit in Talk:Serbia/Archive_6#border_with_Albania_disputed.3F.21. However, this wording fails to address one of the concerns (specifically, my own) discussed earlier in Talk:Serbia/Archive_6#Albania_borders_Kosovo, a discussion in which three editors came to a consensus that addressed multiple concerns about wording. I'm changing it back, pending a proposal for alternate wording that satisfies the following criteria: a) The clause should be succinct; b) Serbia should be the subject of the clause; c) The clause should not state unequivocally that Serbia borders Albania, as this is or is not the case depending on the status of Kosovo, a matter of dispute; d) The clause should not imply that Serbia is alone and unsupported in claiming Kosovo as part of Serbia, since UN Security Council Resolution 1244 supports this claim. Kenji Yamada (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"its border with Albania is disputed" can not remain. It is simply wrong. Do you have any source suggesting that the border is disputed (not Kosovo, but its border with Albania)? I think you don't.

Your a/b/c/d requirements. a) contradicts d) - you can't describe the whole Kosovo situation, who supports what, etc. in "succinct" way (that's why we link to disputed). And I don't think that we need UNSCR1244 or recognition counts inside the sentence in the lead describing the borders. Such things can be placed in the Politics/Geography/Administrative divisions sections - but not in the borders sentence of the lead.

What is your proposal for the wording?

"additionally, it borders Albania through Kosovo, whose status is disputed" - lets see a/b/c/d. a) OK; b) OK ("it" - this is part of the borders sentence that starts with Serbia); c) OK - there is even a link to a page about the dispute; d) N/A and OK - the only change I propose is to change the 'disputed' link to here. Alinor (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The existence of an Albanian-Serbian border is disputed. If Kosovo is not part of Serbia, then Albania and Serbia share no border. The wording it borders Albania through Kosovo, whose status is disputed implies that the existence of an Albanian-Serbian border is not in dispute, whatever the status of Kosovo. That's not the case. Kenji Yamada (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually having a disputed border has a specific meaning in international relations, it would imply that Albania and Serbia are disputing the border. man with one red shoe 03:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I see. How about Serbia's claim to Kosovo, which shares a border with Albania, is disputed. Kenji Yamada (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"it borders Albania through Kosovo, whose status is disputed" - doesn't this make clear that Kosovo is bordering Albania and whether Serbia borders Albania or not depends on the status of Kosovo (mentioned afterwards as disputed)?

Your proposed wording doesn't blend with the whole sentence automatically. Could you make a proposal for rewording the whole sentence, not only the Albania part - so that we can see how it would look like? Alinor (talk) 07:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think that wording makes it clear that whether Serbia borders Albania or not depends on the status of Kosovo, because it doesn't specify what about Kosovo's status is disputed (namely, whether it's part of Serbia). I could accept it in this modified form:

it claims a border with Albania through Kosovo, whose status as part of Serbia is disputed.

Kenji Yamada (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

actually, Serbia borders Kosovo, it has multiple border-crossing points and a borderline guarded by KFOR, can't ignore that. It doesn't really border Ablania since it's government has no control over this border, this border is only theoretical, you would need extra sources even to prove that it is disputed, otherwise it is WP:SYNTH, I haven't personally heard of the Kosovo border with Albania being disputed, even if this is implied we can't state it unless a reliable source is quoted (WP:SYNTH) --Cradel (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

So, what about "..."it borders Albania through Kosovo, whose status is disputed"? Alinor (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this is the best wording. man with one red shoe 02:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm also fine with Kenji's amendment above, "...whose status as part of Serbia is disputed." It succinctly clarifies what exactly about Kosovo is disputed. I'm not sure about "borders Albania" versus "claims a border with Albania", as I feel enough was said already. I'm not opposed to it, either. No such user (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

So what about the fact that it de facto borders Kosovo, or do we just ignore that? I do not see the importance of even mentioning the inexistent Serbian-Albanian border, something like this would be probably better and much more reflecting reality:...it also borders the disputed region (or autonomous province if you like) of Kosovo, which in turn borders Albania. --Cradel (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be okay with leaving out "claims" if "as part of Serbia" is included. That would still make it clear that the existence of an Albania-Serbia border is in question. Kenji Yamada (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

So, what about "..."it borders Albania through Kosovo, whose status as part of Serbia is disputed"? I think this makes it obvious enough - "trough Kosovo", so if it is not "part of Serbia", then obviously Serbia borders Kosovo instead of Albania, right? Alinor (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I can accept that. Kenji Yamada (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between a geographical border and an administrative border, the Alb-Ser administrative border doesn't exist while the geographical border does (assuming Kos as part of Ser), on the other hand the Kos-Ser administrative border exists and isn't disputed while the geographical one exists here as well (assuming Kos. isn't part of Ser). In order to be neutral we have to mention the undisputed facts, Kos-Ser admin. exists while Alb-Ser admin. doesn't, that is the important de facto reality and must be added to the article. As for the geo. borders, any of the proposals work for me --Cradel (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Do not change

Please do not change the facts about establishment of the first state,kingdom,empire,etc. as they are all correct,and can be checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rekonstruh (talk • contribs) 22:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "do not change" on Wikipedia. Right below your edit box, it reads:

If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.

That being said, no one disputes correctness of those facts (they are all stated in the text), just their relevance for the infobox. The infobox is supposed to summarize the most important landmark events for the modern state. While I don't agree with having just one (Montenegrin independence referendum), I don't agree with 9 in your version either, which are contradictory: in the section titled "Modern statehood" the first event is in 768 (!).

I propose retaining

| established_event1 = Principality of Serbia (medieval) 8th Century
| established_event2 = Independence from Ottoman Empire 1804
| established_event3 = Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1918
| established_event4 = Independent republic 200

Of course, there are other solutions. However, I don't think that the e.g. short-lived Despotate or the proclamation of Empire (which is basically just a whim of one ruler to "upgrade" his title) are of so big importance to be in the infobox. No such user (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

And what the hell is 768/8th century??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.199.213 (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Length of the article

Some people consider that the article is too long. I suggest that the "History section" should be rewritten. Perhaps, the same way the French did it (see France). Pictures should remain the way they are, because they seem to be pretty good. And, "Music" should be shorter.

In fact, articles on many other countries(like for example: US, UK, Argentina, France, Mexico) are even longer.

Also, coat of arms should be changed, because the flag is. And anthem should be in english - "God of justice", and we should also put the media file.

mm.srb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm.srb (talk • contribs) 13:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I placed that tag, after someone added bunch of just tangentially related information (too detailed and mostly unreferenced coverage of science, music, and few more things, which would be better suited for detailed articles, see WP:SUMMARY). After nice cleanup by User:Buttons (thanks!), the length is about fine. Some sections, like Music, are still too detailed, but overall, the tag is unjustified. I would argue that other country articles' are too long, either.

The problem with new coat of arms and flag is that we do not have high-quality, SVG versions of the image. The JPEG we have does not look good at all when scaled down; since the difference is only in details, in my opinion it is better that we keep the old version around rather than display the correct but smeared version.

No opinion on the anthem's language. No such user (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Statistics

Serbia has 7.498.001 citizens excluding Kosovo and Metohija according to the last census from 2002 : http://www.srbija.gov.rs/pages/article.php?id=6 Can someone make a correction ?

Pedja770 (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is up-to-date with October 2010 estimate by the national Bureau of Statistics [1]. No such user (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Serbia nature and sports

Someone please put more nature images of Serbia because it has a beautiful nature so find some interesting pictures and about Sport section please put at least 2 more pictures of football team or basketball team please!