Serbia was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgrade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgrade on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgradeWikipedia:WikiProject BelgradeTemplate:WikiProject BelgradeBelgrade articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe articles
This article is part of WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the Eastern Orthodox Church. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You may also want to look at the current collaboration of the month or the project's notice board.Eastern OrthodoxyWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern OrthodoxyTemplate:WikiProject Eastern OrthodoxyEastern Orthodoxy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illyria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illyria and Illyrians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllyriaWikipedia:WikiProject IllyriaTemplate:WikiProject IllyriaIllyria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Future enlargement of the European Union#Recognised candidates|candidate status]] The anchor (#Recognised candidates) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
Genocide watch
@Iaof2017: I fail to see how this organization's opinion is due in a general section about the country's politics. Serbia certainly has some issues but I don't see what they find "alarming" in their "stages of concern" is particularly vital to this article. Per WP:ONUS, please gain consensus for this inclusion. --Griboski (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why you removed the image of Milošević (with its recently discussed caption that is referenced in the section of the body it accompanies) and replaced it with a different image with a WP:OR caption. TylerBurden (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Partly unsourced maybe, but it's not OR, as the section mentions protesters overthrowing the Milošević government on 5 October 2000. It's a pivotal moment in the country's history, highlighting both Milošević and the transitional democratic government. I don't have a strong opinion about which picture is better however. Griboski (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find Griboski's image, with its corresponding caption, slightly better. It mentions Milošević, yet also highlights the country's dissatisfaction with his policy. The 5 October Overthrow was truly a symbolic event of the country's history. --Azor (talk). 20:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then I do not really see why it can't be added without removing the image of Milošević. In every attempt to add the image, the editor has removed the Milošević image and replaced it. It seems they are both notable, with the difference being the Milošević caption is more strongly established by the sources. So just add the 5 October Overthrow as an additional image? TylerBurden (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent changes
Hello everyone, I want to emphasize and underline that the current photo related to the recent period of Serbian history is the right choice. The previous photo of Milošević was added through a war of changes and POV pushhing, only a month or two ago, during holiday season, when most editorrs, myself included are not as active. Btw. the photo of the same politician is already on a separate page about the history of Serbia. The mentioned political personality is certainly not more important than King Aleksandar Karađorđević, Josip Broz Tito, Koča Popović and several other personalitie. With the new-current photo, we refer to his reign as well as a key (underline, key) moment in the modern history of the country whose history we are writing about. So, the photo has more good aspects, compared to the artistic photo of the then influential politician. I will ask you not to chang it, unless you have a wide consensus, which seems not to be the case. Thank you. Soundwaweserb (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The removal of the portrait of Milosevic is not in line with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality and consensus and could be seen as an attempt to suppress one perspective. Articles often include images of controversial figures, such as Hitler on Germany, Kim Jong Un on North Korea, Enver Hoxha on Albania and so on, to provide a well-rounded view of historical events. Eventhough the image's inclusion was reached through consensus, and this should be respected unless there are compelling reasons to remove it, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Iaof2017 (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier discussion was motivated by the inclusion/exclusion of any picture related to Milošević, rather than which picture to use. Even then, there was no sign of consensus happening. As far as I can see now, there is currently no one arguing in favor of total exclusion of all pictures related to Milošević, so I also don't see how this can be any violation of neutrality. This is a matter of preferences on which picture to use. Both are decent pictures, but as I said earlier, I prefer Griboski's picture (and caption) due to its wider historical context. --Azor (talk). 11:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The image is good enough! is that supposed to be some kind of argument? If a consensus forms on removing the image, it will be removed. So far it seems such a consensus is starting to emerge. Khirurg (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The image was established with the caption after discussion on this very talk page, from what I remember, the people that wanted it removed argued that it was offensive. However Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, so that is not a valid reason and there is zero policy backing it to establish actual consensus. If you want to change the image, you should provide policy based reasons to do so, rather than assume bad faith and call it POV pushing. It has been stable on the article now for far longer than the proposed replacement, so wait until a formal consensus is formed per WP:STATUSQUO rather than attempting to edit war. TylerBurden (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have searched the talkpage archives and cannot find the consensus for inclusion of the Milosevic image. Can you point out when that consensus was established? Which images are in an article is not determined by policy, but by user consensus. You arguments amount to nothing more than shifting the burden of proof (you should provide policy based reasons to do so) and status quo stonewalling (It has been stable on the article). Now, why don't you tell us the real reason you are so absoultely insistent that this image be included over scores of other possibilities? Khirurg (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The image of Slobodan Milosevic has been a contentious addition since it was first added. A consensus was previously reached on the caption text, not the image itself. The image does not meet WP:IMAGERELEVANCE as it isn’t significant to the topic. Previous discussions in July highlighted the fact that the article's body barely mentions anything of his rule - WP:STRUCTURE. We now have new objections raised based on the insignificance of Slobodan Milosevic. Adolf Hitler and Enver Hoxha appear on the Germany and Albania pages respectively because they are important figures for those countries, given their duration in power, prominence and the significant impact they had on their people. Other important figures such as Helmut Kohl and Sali Berisha do not appear on the Germany and Albania pages respectively, despite their rule coinciding with significant events. I do not see why this page should be an exception, as there are no significant arguments to keep it, it should be removed. ElderZamzam (talk) 07:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that Milosevic's rule is not extensively detailed in the article, but his image remains relevant to the understanding of the broader political context of the Balkans during his time of rule. The image also aligns with WP:NOTCENSORED that promotes the principle of providing neutral coverage even if they are controversial. Your comparisons with other articles such as those featuring Hoxha or Hitler are valid to some extent, but each article should be evaluated based on its historical factors. Whether you like it or not, his role in the breakup of Yugoslavia and the conflicts that followed and his international prominence make him a important figure in Balkan history. Iaof2017 (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of us seem to agree the Milosevic picture don't reflect the article's body extensively, at least not enough to completely shut down other possibilities. However, you are allegedly worried about the lack of "understanding the broader political context" by removing the Milosevic picture, but for some reason you are not finding the new image to be more effective in terms of that? The focal point of the 5 October Overthrow image appears to be substantially relevant to Milosevic's governance, in contrast to an image of him sitting and smiling. It deliberately shows the controversial rule of Milosevic. --Azor (talk). 09:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Five/six editors (Azorzal, Griboski, Soundwaweserb, Ranko Nikolić and ElderZamzam (+ possibly Khirurg) has expressed views that are in favor of a change and two editors (TylerBurden, Iaof2017) are hesitant, it is fair to say the vast majority are, in fact, accepting of the alternative picture. On top of that, considering the previous picture was never once added as a result of consensus, I see no reason to keep this discussion going any longer. --Azor (talk). 11:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to give my two cents coming across this discussion and edit wars. I think we can have this discussion without casting potential aspersions on people. The logic behind having the rebellion and overthrow of Milosevic seems to show both images could and should be included. One puts a face to a notorious figured and has a sourced caption not “pov” and the other picture shows a significant rise against this figure. To say Milosevic is not notable enough or not talked about in the article is laughable. But I agree the rebellion image is important. And doesn’t make sense to not include as it was a democratic turning point. So why not include both? Why must it be one or the other? Article is definitely large enough. And it would please both groups of editors for wishing for each image to be included. Good compromise? Saves all this back and forth arguing. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I proposed above, which has recieved no response. Every attempt to add the 5 October event has coincided with removal of the Milošević image. It is now being argued that that he is not a significant part of the section, when he is in fact extensively mentioned in it. His name comes up 10 times in the section, while the 5 October event has a single mention in the second last paragraph. So how does this argument work? I have nothing against adding the second image provided it is referenced and neutrally written (like the image of Milošević), but I see zero reason behind doing that at the cost of the image, other than censorship. It may be needed to again hold an RfC to bring in uninvolved editors since Serbia is clearly a complicated Wikipedia topic, especially when it comes to anything potentially controversial. TylerBurden (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it would be any worse than how images are already placed in the other sections, there is also the option of replacing the image showcasing Serb breakaway states that are not specifically mentioned at all in the section. Otherwise, MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE is the important guideline here. The main reason for keeping the image of Milošević is that he is actually heavily established in the section, not to offend people or whatever. TylerBurden (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A good trait by the alternative picture is that it would serve as a reference to both Milosevic and the rebellion. It increases the effectiveness of the section and provide the reader a much better overview of his controversial rule. Why have two pictures, when you can have "both in one"? Unless, of course you find his smile to be the vital part. --Azor (talk). 06:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does his facial expression have to do with anything, and why are you repeatedly bringing up the fact that he is smiling? "Much better overview" is very subjective, especially when talking about a photo of an event mentioned once in the section versus the man present in most of it. Again, MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. TylerBurden (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rebellion picture and its caption holds substantial significance as it aids readers in understanding the reasons behind those rebellions, the sequence of events that led to Milosevic's overthrow, and the gradual emergence of democratic principles in Serbia. If this was solely a Milosevic biography, I would get your point and your choice to be so hesitant, but the general point of the section is to emphasize the nation's shift towards democracy. Acting as if the rebellion image is less relevant is completely out of my understanding. --Azor (talk). 21:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is less relevant, because it is mentioned once, whereas Milošević is mentioned throughout the section over a span covering more than a decade. If the image is so important, then add it in the place of breakaway territories which are not covered in the section at all. That combination would fit the section far better, providing both an overview of Milošević and the event that led to the end of his rule. TylerBurden (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The image depicting the events of the Fifth of October is, to repeat, a key moment in national history. The bibliography does not dispute this fact. The description of the photo mentions the political rule of Milošević. So, the photo indicates the type of his rule, how it ended and how the democratic multi-party rule in Serbia began, accordingly, I don't see that we have a particularly big topic for discussion, nor that we need two photos for 10 years of history, nor that there is censorship, because there is none. MareBG (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your whole point boils down to this: Because "Milošević" is the word that pops up more often, a picture of him is automatically the best choice. Sounds like you are the only one who needs to take into consideration what the article actually says. --Azor (talk). 13:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the point at all, and I don't know how you could land at that conclusion. The image is more relevant because he is the bigger topic, not the single event, or his smile. TylerBurden (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The bigger topic is the transitional democratic government, in which the people played a key role for its implementation. Milosevic wasn't the only figure sitting on that government, there were a bunch of other key politicians (such as Aleksandar Vučić) too. You act as if this article is some kind of biography. --Azor (talk). 15:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then where is the mention of other politicians? The only one specifically mentioned is Milošević, and the 5 October rebellion is directly related to him. There seems to be a desire to shuffle Milošević to the side in favour of a focus on Serbs "rising up" against him and shifting to democracy, as a neutral encyclopedia both should be covered. Instead of having a random picture of breakaway states not even mentioned in the section, have images depicting both Milošević and the event that ended his time in power. No one has given a single reason for why that solution doesn't work, or why the image depicting breakaway states belongs.
On a sidenote, since people are starting to claim there is consensus, there is definetely no formal consensus. The issue of WP:CANVASSING relating to Serbia topics is also something I have been privately informed about several times. The best solution if editors are unable to accept the fact that the image of Milošević is valid is to hold a formal RfC to bring in actual uninvolved editors that can look at it objectively. TylerBurden (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 5 October was against Milosevic's government as a whole. By getting rid of Milosevic, his political allies were stripped of their power. That was crucial as scholars has described for example Vučić as the key figure in the shaping the media policies in Serbia. And for the record, I don't see how your time spent chit chatting in private is relevant to this discussion. Editors who has some experience in this part of history knows it has a complicated historical context. --Azor (talk). 21:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So no response to the questions I posed, why is that? The "chit chatting" is directly related to this, as several editors have raised concern that Serbian editors are WP:CANVASSING to shape articles according to their liking. I share the concern since people seem to be going on their feelings here rather than following Wikipedia policy and MOS, in this case with the specific focus on removing the image of Milošević despite solutions with compromises being offered. I would rather you answer the questions than going on about government members that are not even mentioned within the section, because if they are as notable as you claim, they would be. TylerBurden (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of who is right and who is wrong here, this isn't the proper place for casting aspersions or accusations based on what someone told you in private. If you have evidence, you can present it at WP:ANI. Otherwise, stick to the topic. As a side note, it isn't uncommon at all for certain editors to patrol a high visibility article such as this one.
If you monitored Balkan topics beyond the Serbia article alone, you'd be surprised at how "complicated" it can get with editing disputes and I'm willing to bet those same people who warned you about canvassing don't exactly have clean hands either regarding their own editing block. --Griboski (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Joining in… I think the rebellion picture is a better choice since it illustrates a break from the past, the transition from authoritarian rule to democracy and the collective efforts it took; in that sense it’s perfectly illustrate a chapter called: “Breakup of Yugoslavia and political transition”. Having a portrait of Milošević here brings nothing, it oversimplifies a complex historical narrative by giving him too much importance reinforcing a one-dimensional view. It’s better to have an image that shows a more constructive representation of this period in history and helps readers focus on the broader historical context. Aeengath (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"A portrait of Milošević here brings nothing [...] giving him too much importance": of course it does, he was central to Serbia during that period and had a profound impact on other ex-Yugoslavian countries while also contributing to major conflicts in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo. So your statement is not convincing at all at this point. Again, retaining the image of Milosevic aligns with Wikipedia's guidlines such as relevance, neutrality, consensus and particularly WP:NOTCENSORED which clearly emphasises that controversial figures should not be excluded solely on the basis of controversy. However, the proposal of TylerBurden and OyMosby to include both images is a good solution to be considered. Iaof2017 (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what censorship? this is about relevance... having his portait does nothing to improve the comprehension of the article instead it might give the impression that he was the sole cause of the breakup which oversimplifies a complex historical event... It makes no sense for such a short section that does not provide sufficient context or information for readers who may not be familiar with the subject. The rebellion picture is exactly the opposite as it provides relevance and illustrate perfectly the section. Aeengath (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Aeengath and MareBG. Furthermore, the claims of "censorship" are total nonsense, there is no "censorship" whatsoever. It seems there is a large majority of users, myself included, that prefers the image of the demonstrations to that of Milosevic, and that's that. Khirurg (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has been reached. Per Wikipedia consensus policy, “consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote”. There is only one editor who is pushing this, tailwinded by TylerBurden (not counting neither fish nor fowl proposition by another editor). If the problem was some fringe or outrageous claim, fine, but all this bullying of editors by wasting their Wikipedia time because of a picture… PajaBG (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see not reason for Milosevic's photo. He is not more notable than Tito or king Alexander I or some other figures. Look, we have 1 photo for WWI and 1 photo for WWII but we have 3 images for period of 10 years, all because someone's obsession and bully-like ignoring of other editors while all moderators are asleep. 24.135.116.35 (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
